Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITIBANK INTERNATIONAL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

UNIBANK BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 28 October.

WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 28 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Health Care, Down

Mr. Olner: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next intends to visit hospitals in the Down district of Northern Ireland to discuss health care in the district.

Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from Down community health committee on matters relating to health care in Down district.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Michael Ancram): My noble Friend Lord Arran intends to carry out a visit to health and social care facilities in the Down district including the Downe hospital, in the very near future. In November last year, in response to Eastern health and social services board's acute framework document, the Down community health committee forwarded to the Department of Health and Social Services a document entitled "Save our Hospitals". In July of this year, the committee forwarded a further document called "Our Future Hospitals".

Mr. Olner: The Minister is obviously aware of the profound concern that has been expressed in the Down area of Northern Ireland over the threat to the area's maternity and acute services. Why does the health authority insist on threatening the future of the two hospitals which provide excellent care for the local community? Is the health authority being driven by the needs of centralised finance, and not looking at the benefits provided in the community?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member will be aware that the Eastern board is currently finalising its strategy document and it would be wrong at this stage to speculate on what might be in that document. When the document has been completed, it will be forwarded to my noble Friend Lord Arran, who will give it careful consideration. That consideration will be given in the light of representations that are made to him, and also those that I will pass on to him that have been made in the House today.

Hospital Closures

Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last discussed with members of the Eastern health and social services board the question of the closure of and reduction in hospitals in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ancram: The Secretary of State has had no discussions with members of the Eastern health and social services board about the provision of hospital services. My noble Friend Lord Arran keeps in regular contact with the board about the progress in the development of its strategy for acute hospital services.

Mrs. Jackson: Further to the question he has just answered, does the Minister agree that the effect—HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] I am not reading.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Lady is doing exactly the opposite of what I asked her to do, and is speculating on what might be in the report. That speculation negates the process, of which I will remind her.
The Government set out their overall policy and objectives and, once that is done, the health and social services board is expected to respond with its own area strategy. On this occasion, the Eastern and Southern boards have chosen to supplement their area strategies with separate documents for acute hospital services. However, the consultation and approval process remains the same, and will be carried out as it always is in such circumstances.

Mr. John D. Taylor: As local people and their representatives in Northern Ireland have no say whatever in the operation of the Eastern health and social services board, will the Minister draw to that body's attention, at his next meeting with it, the fact that the population of Belfast has fallen from 400,000 to 280,000 in the past 10 years? Will he tell the board that there is now an overcapacity in the provision of hospital beds in the city of Belfast, and that we want the board to provide more hospital facilities to serve the people of the Castlereagh, Ards and North Down boroughs, which are increasing in population day by day?

Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the board will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's words in the House today. He will understand, however, that the process will work only if the board is allowed to formulate its strategy, subject to


its own process, and bring it before the Minister. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, once that is done, the Minister will consider the strategy fully in the light of all the representations made.

Mr. Hume: Does not the Minister agree that the real purpose of his health policy is nothing to do with improving health, and that the Government are turning hospitals into marketplaces for making a profit? Does he not agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) that services such as maternity services should be as close to the people as possible, especially in rural areas? Why does the hon. Gentleman propose to close the maternity services unit in Omagh in County Tyrone?

Mr. Ancram: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, of all people, has not watched carefully the improvements that have been made in health service provision in Northern Ireland. Let me give him one or two figures. In the past five years, the number of patients treated in hospitals each year has increased by 41,000, or some 17 per cent. In the past two years, the number of patients waiting more than two years for treatment has decreased by 82 per cent. In the past 10 years, deaths from coronary heart disease among those under the age of 65 have fallen from 230 per 100,000 to 153 per 100,000—a drop of 33 per cent. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would sometimes talk up the health service and show the good work that it does in Northern Ireland.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister prevail on the noble Lord Arran to visit the hospitals in the Eastern health and social services board area, to talk to those who provide the services and to listen to some of their genuine concerns? We know that there is no democratic accountability in the boards, but, at present, there are local health and social services councils. Under the new arrangements, those councils will be dispensed with and there will be no opportunity for people to bring forward local interests to be acted upon. Will the Minister impress on his colleague Lord Arran that he should discuss such matters with the people who provide the services and listen to what they are saying, as that is most important?

Mr. Ancram: I am sure that my noble Friend Lord Arran will have heard the hon. Gentleman's request. I repeat that consultation plays a full part in the process. I also repeat what I said right at the beginning—that my noble Friend intends to visit health and social care facilities in the Down district, including the Downe hospital, in the near future.

Security

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on security in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): Since my right hon. and learned Friend answered a similar question on 1 July 1993, there have been 13 deaths as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland, including 12 civilians and one soldier. The Government will continue to pursue a security policy that strives to defend the people of Northern Ireland against those who try to promote their views by violence or threat of violence.

Mr. Townsend: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to a post for which he seems singularly well qualified. First, there have been reports during the summer recess of arms finds in Northern Ireland. Can he give the House further details? Secondly, what have the security forces done to try to improve their relationship with local people in Northern Ireland?

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Royal Ulster Constabulary, ably supported by the Army, is succeeding in arresting a large number of terrorist offenders. As at 10 October this year, 283 people had been charged with terrorist-related offences, including 46 with murder or attempted murder. Moreover, large quantities of firearms, ammunition and explosives are being recovered by the operations of the RUC, so ably supported by the Army. I should further say to my hon. Friend that the relationship between the public and the RUC and the Army has never been better and is improving all the time.

Mr. Maginnis: In view of Lady Thatcher's frank admission in her memoirs that the United Kingdom received far better intelligence co-operation from most other European countries than from the Irish republic and her conclusion that the Anglo-Irish Agreement's contribution to security was very limited, is it still the Government's intention to continue, in her words, to refrain from security policies that might alienate the Irish Republic?

Sir John Wheeler: I speak for the Government as it is today and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the co-operation between the Garda and the Royal Ulster Constabulary has never been greater. I have visited many of the border police stations and seen evidence of that co-operation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that co-operation will continue.

Rev. William McCrea: Bearing in mind the bomb at Cookstown courthouse in my constituency which displaced many elderly people and the recent death in our Province of another constituent of mine, the innocent Annie Bogle, because of the IRA bomb in Castlederg thrown near elderly people, what would the Minister say to my constituents are the steps that the Government intend to take to end the reign of terror that the people of Ulster have suffered for more than 20 years?

Sir John Wheeler: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the policy of the Government is to use the resources of the RUC and the Army to the fullest extent to arrest and detain the terrorist gangs who commit those abominable crimes. In no circumstances will the Government permit any killing or crime to take place without the fullest investigation and the determined support of the forces of the Crown to prevent those outrages from recurring.

Dr. Hendron: While I appreciate that the Provisional IRA have been the main killers in Northern Ireland over the past 20 years, will the Secretary of State make a statement about the murder gangs of the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force? Bearing in mind that almost 30 children in west and north Belfast have been left without a parent over the past few months because of those murder gangs, that thousands of Catholic people, mainly in the Belfast area and beyond, are living in fear and terror,


and that, as the House knows, the most recent victims of those murder gangs were Jody Reynolds and Patrick McMahon, will the Secretary of State make a statement?

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows from our recent meeting, I take very seriously such wanton killing of individuals. No matter what the motive, it is evil, wrong and should be opposed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Ulster Constabulary will do its utmost to prevent such outrages. Nine people had been charged with serious terrorist offences in the five days from 8 October.

Lady Olga Maitland: May I seek the Minister's assurance that, despite the row over defence budgeting, not one soldier will be withdrawn from Northern Ireland and the Army will remain properly equipped?

Sir John Wheeler: I am glad to repeat the assurances of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who made it absolutely clear that the Government will continue to devote all resources necessary for security in Northern Ireland. I am glad to confirm that position today.

Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1993

Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many responses he received to the draft Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Up until 19pctober, 15 responses had been received from interested organisations and individuals. My noble Friend Lord Arran has recently extended the consultation period by eight weeks to allow all those who wish to express views on the proposal further time to do so.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the extension, for which we had asked even before this was published, but may we have a sitting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee to discuss the order, which is one of the most vital to come before the House because it affects the future of many people in Northern Ireland, particularly our future generations?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is for the House authorities and principally the Leader of the House to determine whether the Northern Ireland Committee should take heed of what he has asked. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the request.

School Curriculum

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the curriculum in use in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ancram: Northern Ireland has its own distinctive curricular framework based on areas of study. Compulsory subjects are broadly the same as in England and Wales. Arrangements are in place for ongoing monitoring and review of the curriculum, but, in response to teachers' concerns about overload, I have asked the Northern Ireland Curriculum Council to complete a detailed review of the primary curriculum by the end of April 1994.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he join me in welcoming the admirable interim report

of Sir Ron Dearing, and does he agree that Sir Ron Dearing's concept of the need to equip our children to compete in a world of enormous job challenges from the Pacific rim and from other areas means that there will have to be new and original thinking on the curriculum? Not everything can be tackled, but changes will have to be made, and teachers, parents and children must be ready to accept them in the interests of future generations.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. He will appreciate that Sir Ron Dearing's review does not extend to Northern Ireland, but, because our systems are similar in many respects, his recommendations will be of much interest to us. I shall certainly want to take account of whatever emerges from his review in considering the best way forward in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Beggs: I welcome the announcement that the Minister made earlier this year that there will be no new programmes of study in the primary school this year, that there will be a review of the curriculum and that there will be a further pilot scheme on assessment. The Minister is establishing a reputation already as a listener, but will he assure the House that the curriculum review will be wide ranging and that account will be taken of the views of teachers, managers in education and parents so that those who ultimately have to deliver the policies that are implemented will have an input in creating those policies and will be committed to them?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. The purpose of the review is to investigate problems and concerns that have arisen in schools, especially in relation to overload. The curriculum council has issued a paper for wide circulation seeking comment on the problems encountered by teachers. It investigates the contributory factors and seeks views on solutions. There will be wide consultation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we do not want unnecessarily to prolong uncertainty. I have, therefore, asked for a report by the end of April. I hope to be able to implement some of its findings in time for next September and most of its finding for the year after.

Mr. Rathbone: Under the review, will my hon. Friend ensure that sufficient health education is included in the curriculum?

Mr. Ancram: I will certainly take on board what my hon. Friend says.

Inter-party Talks

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest position concerning inter-party talks.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Government remain determined to promote further political dialogue towards a comprehensive settlement involving the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, the Irish Government and ourselves. We are engaged in private bilateral discussions, exploring the basis on which further dialogue can take place.

Mr. Barnes: Would not talks be facilitated by moves in the Republic of Ireland to make its practices more acceptable to Protestants in Northern Ireland, and moves in Northern Ireland to make its practices more acceptable to


its Catholic minority? The Opsahl commission has made a number of proposals that may be of considerable benefit. Its report has been discussed throughout the island of Ireland, but discussed little in Britain. Will the Secretary of State ensure that it forms part of the backcloth to tomorrow's debate on Northern Ireland issues, as it may be relevant to the development of talks?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman will need to be more particular in his complaints about practices both north and south of the border before I can answer that part of his question. If I am lucky enough to catch the Speaker's eye, I will refer to the Opsahl report in a speech. That is how I prefer to answer the hon. Gentleman's question today.

Sir James Kilfedder: In a recent television interview, the president of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, declared in regard to any possible settlement that the British people and the Government would have to sue for peace, and, moreover, that the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland would not have a decisive say in the future of the Province. Will the Secretary of State comment on that?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I generally do not comment, in the House or elsewhere, on what other people have said. However, I re-emphasise that the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear in his speech at Blackpool that the Government will continue to stand behind the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. There has been much very understandable and proper talk about self-determination. Whether the present status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is confirmed or changed will depend—and depend alone—on an act of self-determination by the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. William Ross: Surely the talks that took place betwen the two Governments last year have clarified the parties' position for everyone concerned. Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman go on talking about further talks when the position is absolutely clear? Is he aware that whenever the word "speculation" appears in denials, the people of Northern Ireland have learnt by bitter experience that usually the speculation is accurate? Is he further aware that the proposals made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Mr. Adams are nothing less than an IRA demand for total surrender to the violence, and the threat of further violence, from the IRA? Will the Government make it clear that they will not surrender to those demands, no matter how much blarney is wrapped around them?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have not had the advantage of a copy of the text to which the hon. Gentleman refers. At the end of the talks process on 9 November last year, all parties agreed that there was a need for further dialogue. The hon. Gentleman referred to the talks process, but it is further dialogue that everyone agreed should continue, and it is that formulation which I used in my answer. I believe that the people of the Province as a whole share the view that it is important that politicians should sit down and see whether there is any further progress to be made towards the objectives that they all signed up to as long ago as March 1991.
I need not go further in answering the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question than to reiterate what I said to the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) a

moment ago: that the people of Northern Ireland have a basic democratic right to decide their future. The Government will continue to back the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to read, in yesterday's The Irish Times, what is purported to be the outcome of the so-called Hume-Adams initiative? Are the proposals outlined acceptable to the Secretary of State, or does he still stand by his often-repeated remark that self-determination by the people of Northern Ireland will decide the political destiny of the Province?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The latest repetition of my often-repeated remark occurred about 10 seconds ago, just before the hon. Gentleman asked his question, so naturally I stand by it. I think that it is unwise to speculate on a matter that has not been communicated to the British Government. I agree with the four church leaders who said recently, in a joint statement, that they regarded speculation as unhelpful and dangerous.

Mr. Mallon: The Secretary of State is obviously aware of the discussions taking place between my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the president of Sinn Fein, in a sincere attempt to end violence and bring peace to the north of Ireland. Will he assure the House that if there is even the slightest chance of peace, he will take the opportunity and not let it slip? Will he assure us that he, as Secretary of State, will not allow short-sighted intransigence, feigned self-righteousness or his Government's deal with the Ulster Unionists to stay in power to stand in the way of the peace that the people of the north of Ireland crave and deserve so much?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: One thing is needed to secure the peace desired by everyone in Northern Ireland—and much more widely, I may say. That is a declaration by the Provisional IRA and other terrorists—a declaration that those people mean—that the perpetration of violence is over, and over for good. It is not a question of ceasefires, with the threat of only a temporary relief. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's implication that peace in his terms—at any price—should be pursued.
As I have said many times in the House and outside, if that message is given, and if enough time elapses for the fact that it is for real to be established in sceptical minds, we shall be at the beginning of a new phase.

Mr. Garnier: Has my right hon. and learned Friend found the apparent embracing of articles 2 and 3 of the constitution of the Republic by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, through the agency of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), to be of any assistance whatever in the conduct of the inter-party talks?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I believe that it is generally understood that there is much of a constitutional character to be discussed by the two Governments. It is as well understood by the Government of the Republic as it is by us that articles 2 and 3 have a central part to play in those discussions, and also in the discussions on all three strands with which we were concerned last year.
I am bound to say that I thought the tone of the speech made in Cork by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull,


North (Mr. McNamara)—as it was reported—rather more supportive of no change in articles 2 and 3 than I would have expected him to be, if he was being realistic.

Mr. McNamara: I was interested to note that the Secretary of State was able to question the tone only of a report of the speech. At his request and that of his office, a copy was sent to him yesterday. If he had read it, he would have seen it clearly stated that both articles 2 and 3 and the Government of Ireland Act 1920—which have been bones of contention between the two different communities in Northern Ireland—should be on the table for discussion.
Talking of matters being on the table for discussion, does the Secretary of State still believe that, as a basis for the inter-party dialogues, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I think that it is entirely for the participants in the process to decide by what rule they should proceed. For my part, I believe that it is clear that to assemble around the table again immediately would be counter-productive; I believe that the right process now is to explore, in bilateral discussions with the other parties, how we can best take matters forward.
I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman has retained his position, at least for this afternoon, and I hope that he will still be there tomorrow morning. I hope that he will then be able to tell us whether the recent publication of the views of some of his closest advisers on Northern Ireland represent the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition. They state:
We also recognise that critics will claim that our model of shared authority is undemocratic because it will initially have to be imposed against the wishes of a majority of Northern Ireland's citizens. We reply first of all that Northern Ireland, at present, is not a legitimate unit of democratic decision-making and rests on coercion.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confirm whether that is his view, as a spokesman for the Opposition.

Health Care (Down)

Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the proposals for the Down group of hospitals in Downpatrick, County Down, put forward by the Eastern health and social services board; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ancram: I am aware that there is much concern about the future of the Down group of hospitals. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Eastern health and social services board expects to publish its strategy on acute hospital services in the near future. That will be sent to my noble Friend Lord Arran, who will examine it carefully before deciding whether to endorse it.

Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for his reply, which was perhaps inadvertently slightly disingenuous, in that the Eastern health board report is already complete and is in the Department of Health and Social Services. The Department and the Minister will make the decision de facto, not de jure. When his ministerial colleague considers that report, will he take notice of all the community concerns and uphold the effective and cost-effective general and maternity provision that is made in the Down district hospital? Will he also bear in mind the enormous economic and social consequences that an adverse decision

would engender for Down district and do his utmost to ensure that accessibility, with the group provision that we already have, will be the basis of the eventual decision?

Mr. Ancram: I am very much aware of the importance of the Downe hospital to the people of Downpatrick and district. I am well aware of the concerns that exist there, as is my noble Friend Lord Arran. I have to say, however, that the report to which I refer—I referred to it earlier—was that by which the Eastern and Southern boards have chosen to implement their area strategies with separate documents for acute hospital services. That is not yet before my noble Friend Lord Arran. When it is, he will give it due consideration.

Economy

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to promote the economy of Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Robert Atkins): The Government are helping to strengthen the Northern Ireland economy through measures intended to make business more competitive. We are helping companies to identify and remove obstacles to growth; encouraging inward investment; building up management and work force skills; developing an enterprise culture; and supporting innovation, research and development.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is in the interests of all concerned fully to support the Government's policies in Northern Ireland and that the prosperity of Northern Ireland is of vital imporance, not only to everyone in the British Isles, but to investors overseas?

Mr. Atkins: It is important to support not only Government policies in Northern Ireland, but Government policies generally.
My hon. Friend is right. The inward investment programme of activity has been carried out by the Industrial Development Board, supported by a variety of Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. I am grateful to them, as they constituents should be, for that effort, which does so much to provide new jobs in the Province.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Although I congratulate the Minister on the foreign investment and the extra jobs that have been brought into Northern Ireland recently by him and his Department, may I ask him to set up representatives from his own Department, the IDB and the Local Enterprise Development Unit, to discuss ways of better helping local inventors and entrepreneurs? If those products were properly developed, more local jobs would be created in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the subject, which he and his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) have already drawn to my attention. It is worth recording that about 90 per cent. of IDB funds are spent on existing companies in Northern Ireland—small ones through LEDU, progressing to IDB, growing into successful companies, which have become extremely important in United Kingdom terms.


However, if there are cases that he would like me to consider, affecting his constituents or anyone else, I should be more than happy to consider them.

Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that the privatisations of Harland and Wolff, of Short Brothers and, more recently, of Northern Ireland Electricity—which were all bitterly resisted by Opposition Members—have been extremely successful? Surely that shows that what Northern Ireland needs is not less privatisation but more.

Mr. Atkins: The first time that I visited Northern Ireland the cranes of Harland and Wolff were absolutely static and I saw nothing happening, Shorts were struggling to find investment and other companies were in a similar position. Since privatisation, the two companies to which my hon. Friend referred have become enormously successful. Shorts recently celebrated its 85th anniversary with a massive order worth about £70 million and Harland and Wolff is going from strength to strength and is making some fine ships again—so, my hon. Friend is entirely right. The more that we can do to encourage private sector involvement in what were public sector companies, the better it will be for the economy of Northern Ireland.

Homelessness

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the latest figures for the total number of homeless people in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Atkins: I am advised by the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that on 1 October 1993, 441 households were living in temporary accommodation secured for them under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.

Mr. Worthington: Is it not the case that in Northern Ireland the number of people in urgent need of rehousing is increasing, that the number of people with the most urgent need—those in the A1 category—is also increasing, and that a large number of other people have been defined out of existence as homeless by Housing Executive procedures? Is it not becoming more and more difficult to get a home in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Atkins: The simple answer to almost all those questions is no. In the past 12 years, urgent housing has dropped from something like 19,000 to 10,000. The Housing Executive has a large amount of money to invest in housing of one form or another. It is with no sense of complacency that I recall for the benefit of the House that Northern Ireland does not have as great a problem as other parts of the United Kingdom. That is thanks to the sterling efforts of the Housing Executive at all levels. It is relatively easy to get a house in Northern Ireland, if the need is proved.

Mr. Trimble: Will the Minister review the homelessness legislation, in the light of a series of recent incidents in my constituency? A family, already believed by their neighbours on the estate to be responsible for vandalising and burning down a dozen houses to steal the fittings, last Tuesday set fire to their own house and have been rehoused by the Housing Executive, which even paid their removal expenses because it is so scared of legal actions being taken against it under the homelessness legislation that it will not

take a proper stand. Surely something should be done to ensure that the legislation not only caters for the genuinely homeless but does not let criminal elements exploit it in such a way.

Mr. Atkins: I am greatly disturbed by what the hon. Gentleman has said about a specific case, but we cannot deal with the matter on the Floor of the House, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. If he wishes to write to me with details, or to contact my office, I shall be more than happy to ask the chairman of the Housing Executive to look into the matter.

Military and Police Manpower

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the proportion of regular troops of the British Army to full-time RUC officers currently serving in Northern Ireland; and how long he expects that proportion to remain.

Sir John Wheeler: On 31 August 1993, there were 11,659 full-time police officers, including full-time reservists, and 14,770 members of the regular Army, including full-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment, serving in Northern Ireland. There are therefore approximately nine policemen for every 11 soldiers. Manpower levels are kept under regular review.

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he accept that the security situation in Northern Ireland gives little ground for optimism? Does he further accept that the British Army has a justifiably high reputation for counter-terrorist expertise and operations, which members of the RUC, excellent though the men and women of that organisation may be, are neither trained nor recruited for? Does he consider that some of the military resources to which he referred earlier are not being properly used in the Province? Might he not, therefore, consider whether greater military input into tactical operations and strategic planning might lead to a better resolution of the security situation there?

Sir John Wheeler: I know that my hon. Friend comes from a background of military service and therefore his views are to be respected, but it is for the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to determine the deployment of the police and other security services in Northern Ireland. The Army works in association with the RUC and I can assure my hon. Friend that its present role is extremely effective. I do not accept his contention that the present security situation gives little ground for optimism. Far from it—earlier this afternoon I told the House about the continuing success of the RUC, supported by the Army, in arresting terrorist gangs and seizing arms and explosives.

Mr. Molyneaux: In agreement with the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), does the Minister feel that the statements ill-advisedly made by a former Defence Minister are seriously flawed, and that, henceforth, the decisions on troop deployments and manning levels should be decided by the GOC and the Chief Constable, particularly as it has now been confirmed by Baroness Thatcher that the co-operation of the Irish Republic has been extremely disappointing, a view which she was prepared to state while she was head of the Government of which many present on the Front Bench were members?

Sir John Wheeler: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the forces in Northern Ireland will be there and available in accordance with the security threat and as decided by the GOC and the Chief Constable.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 October.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Cyprus.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Bearing in mind that deregulation will be the central plank of Government policy in the new Session of Parliament, will the Leader of the House comment on the case of my constituent Mr. Raymond Townend, who was killed while working on a resurfacing project on the M62 when he was knocked over by a lorry earlier this year? Is the Leader of the House as surprised as I was to learn that the lorry which reversed over Mr. Townend was not required by law to have reversing lights, to have a reversing alarm or to have the manoeuvre supervised by a person other than the driver? Can the Leader of the House understand why Mr. Townend's widow and four children are less than impressed by the Government's theme of deregulation and want more regulation to avoid such tragedies in future?

Mr. Newton: I am sure, first of all, that the whole House will recognise the seriousness with which the hon. Gentleman has made that point, and will understand why he felt it right to raise it, in view of what happened to his constituent, and we extend our sympathy. While he is right to say—and I believe that the. Government are right—that the Government are to make deregulation a central plank of their policies for the period ahead, there is no question whatever of that policy extending to the removal or reversal of necessary protection for the safety of people.

Mrs. Angela Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that, if young thugs are old enough to break into homes and punch pensioners, they are old enough to be locked up?

Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's proposals in that respect have drawn support from all round the country. As the House will be aware, he has announced plans for secure units for 12 to 14-year-old persistent offenders and to increase the possible maximum sentence for 15-year-old offenders. I repeat, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeated, that we put the protection of the public first.

Mrs. Beckett: Does the Lord President accept that national insurance contributions are a tax on income—yes or no?

Mr. Newton: National insurance contributions, as the right hon. Lady, who is a former social security spokesman, knows perfectly well, are part of the national insurance scheme which relates to the entitlement of benefits established by the Labour Government in 1948.

Mrs. Beckett: Is the Lord President denying that national insurance contributions are a tax on income, yes or no?

Mr. Newton: National insurance contributions are the means by which people obtain entitlement to certain benefits, including, most notably, retirement pensions. The level of contributions is related to the demands on the fund, and the demands on the fund include the Government's policies to increase pensions in the way that we have over the past few years.

Mrs. Beckett: Is not it a fact that there is no effective difference between a 1p in the pound increase in income tax and a 1p in the pound increase in national insurance contributions when it comes to the effect on the pay packet? Next April, the Government, and all those now making a noise from the Government Back Benches who voted for it, are putting up both taxes on income and spending and do not have the guts to admit it.

Mr. Newton: There is a clear difference, which the right hon. Lady has obviously missed in what I have already said: national insurance contributions are related to the provision of an entitlement at a later stage. I shall say to her—and she knows it very well—that there would have been a whole lot less difference if the policies advocated by the Opposition Front Bench at the last election had been put into force and the upper earnings limit had been scrapped, because then it would have been the same as income tax.

Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend join me in extending the sympathy of the whole House to the family of police constable Patrick Dunne, who lost his life last night defending the lives of the people of London? Will he discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary ways in which the Metropolitan police, and indeed every other police force in this country, can be made more secure in carrying out their difficult and dangerous job? Does he agree that every police officer in this country does not have a job for life, but they frequently give their life for the job?

Mr. Newton: The reaction of the whole House will show that everybody heard with deep regret of the death of police constable Dunne in south London last night. Everybody will share my hon. Friend's outrage that a community constable should be shot dead in that fashion while going about his duty in a way that we take for, granted. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who, happily, is close to me at this moment, will have heard what my hon. Friend said and will wish to respond appropriately.
As my hon. Friend knows, a large number of measures have already been set out by my right hon. and learned Friend, which have been warmly welcomed by the chairman of the Police Federation as being exactly on the right lines to improve the fight against crime. The House will also be pleased to know that I understand that three arrests have been made in connection with that crime.

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 October.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jones: The Lord President will recall the answer that the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on Tuesday. Therefore, will he tell the House what particular cheese and wine party it was at which Asil Nadir gave £440,000 to the Tory party, and will he explain how much cheese and wine it will take to account for the £70 million missing from Tory party funds?

Mr. Newton: I do not know that I am expert on all the guest lists for wine and cheese parties. It may be that, at this very moment, in Cyprus, Mr. Nadir is having lunch with Mr. Costa, the benefactor of the previous leader of the Labour party.

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 October.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Evennett: Will my right hon. Friend condemn" those who were responsible for the violence in south-east London last Saturday at the anti-British National party march, and express sympathy to those who were injured and those who had property damaged as a result of that violence? Will he join me in congratulating the police on the magnificent job that they did on that occasion, and urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to consider the whole issue of the BNP in Welling and see what can be done about it?

Mr. Newton: Again, the House will understand why my hon. Friend raises a point of such concern in his constituency and I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said. All of us would want to deplore the violence that marred the march last Saturday just as much as we would want to deplore the policies of the British National party.
With regard to the BNP headquarters, I know that my hon. Friend is well aware of the difficulties in relation to planning law. I cannot say much more about that except that I understand that Bexley council is meeting to consider the matter further tonight.

Dr. Wright: Has the Leader of the House seen the statement this week from the heads of all the royal medical colleges in which they say that, because of the Government's market reforms to the health service, urgent cases are being denied treatment and that the patients of fund holders are being given priority over those with clinical need? Does he understand that my constituents are being denied treatment at the Good Hope hospital because all routine admissions have been stopped except for those from GP fund holders? Is not that a disgrace? Is not that a two-tier health service? What will the Government do about it?

Mr. Newton: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, in conjunction with the Joint Consultants Committee, has issued advice about the way in which emergency cases should be given priority, which does not fit with what the hon. Gentleman has said. The NHS reforms are producing a large and substantial increase in activity in the health service and in the number of patients treated, and are reducing the number of those waiting a long time for treatment. They are successful and they will be made more successful.

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 October.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jenkin: Can my right hon. Friend explain why some people seem to see a lurch to the right? Could it be that they keep hearing good news about the economy, such as car production up 15 per cent. in September, retail sales up in September, unemployment down in September, rising confidence in manufacturing industry and, if I may say so, 60 new jobs at Trebor Bassett in my constituency?

Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend's constituency is next to mine and I live only about half a mile away from it, I welcome his last point. I hope that some of the jobs may spread across the border. I also agree entirely that the House will be pleased at the increasing flow of good economic news, particularly that to which he referred—the rise in car production, the rise in retail sales and the fact that unemployment has once again fallen.

Q5. Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 October.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Several hon. Members: Is it Harry? [Interruption.]

Mr. Cohen: Thank you for that warm welcome.

Madam Speaker: Order. I certainly recognise the hon. Gentleman and so does the entire House.

Mr. Cohen: Thank you for those kind words, Madam Speaker.
Are the Government again to cut the money for London Underground? They have already killed the management's 10-year decently modern metro plan. Why are Londoners expected to pay more for a declining third-rate service? Under the Tories, is not the London underground going down the tube?

Mr. Newton: As I think those on both sides of the House know very well, the amount of investment in the public transport infrastructure, rail and other, that has been advanced in recent years under what the hon. Gentleman chooses to call this Tory Government, has been at high, indeed record, levels. I am sure that we shall continue to maintain all possible investment, while taking account, obviously, of other requirements as well.

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 October.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Shaw: My right hon. Friend will recall that four years ago the IRA carried out a terrible crime in my constituency, at the Royal Marines school of music in Deal. Eleven people were killed and many more were seriously injured. I met some of them, and saw in my constituency on Saturday someone who is still suffering seriously from his injuries. The people of Deal dearly love the Royal Marines school of music and hope that it will


stay there for many years to come. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that in any review of marine and military bands, every effort will be made to create a combined military services school of music at Deal, so that we may demonstrate to the world that the IRA will never succeed in its dastardly crimes?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that the House will understand if once again—and this has happened several times this afternoon—I simply acknowledge why my hon. Friend felt it necessary to make that important point on behalf of his constituents and, almost as if I were answering business questions, to undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Business of the House

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25 OCTOBER—Debate on a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied.
TUESDAY 26 OCTOBER—Until 7 o'clock, a motion relating to the Management and Administration of Safety and Health at Mines Regulations, followed by a motion on the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order.
Motion relating to the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) (No. 2) Order.
WEDNESDAY 27 OCTOBER—Opposition Day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate on coal on an Opposition motion, followed by motions relating to the Assisted Areas Order and the Assisted Areas (Amendment) Order.
THURSDAY 28 OCTOBER—Opposition Day (20th allotted day).
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The prevention of crime" in the name of the Liberal Democrats, followed by a debate entitled "The need for a cold climate allowance" in the name of the Scottish National party.
FRIDAY 29 OCTOBER—Motions on the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure and the Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure.
MONDAY 1 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments that may be received to the Railways Bill.
The House will also want to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday 27 October at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents Nos. 8426/92 and 8682/93 relating to packaging and packaging waste.
[Wednesday 27 October:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: 8426/92, 8682/93, packaging and packaging waste.
Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 79-vi (1992–93), HC 79-xv (1992–93); HC 79-xxxvii (1992–93).]

Mr. Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement and for providing a little extra time—although only a little—for the coal debate. However, one and a half hours will be nothing like time enough for all the right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House who will want to take part in the debate on assisted area status. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the amount of time allocated to that matter.
I make a broader point. It would be bizarre if, following a long summer break, we were to have a further long gap between the old Session and the new. Our constituents want us to debate value added tax and zero rating, and unemployment. No one but the Government could want Parliament immediately to take a further long holiday.
I ask the Leader of the House to arrange as soon as possible a debate on public expenditure. The House has not discussed the Government's public expenditure plans since

15 May 1991. I should have thought that even the Leader of the House would accept that events have moved on since then.

Mr. Newton: I am not sure how much sympathy there will be for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about reducing the length of time during which people will be able to attend to their duties in their constituencies. At any rate, I take note of the point. As ever, an issue such as the public expenditure debate is best left for discussion through the usual channels—I believe that the usual channels have already adverted to the matter. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Procedure Committee has published a report which touches on this matter and at which the Government are looking with appropriate care.
The hon. Gentleman kindly acknowledged that, following discussions through the usual channels, we had sought to provide rather more time than usual for the motion relating to the management and administration of safety and health at mines. However, I am afraid that I am unable to give the same undertaking about the assisted areas order.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that, following the return of the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary from Cyprus, they will come to the House and explain the silence of the Foreign Office in regard to the appalling attacks and demonstrations that have occurred in Cyprus relating to Her Majesty the Queen, the head of the Commonwealth? Is not it extraordinary that the Foreign Office should have said nothing in the face of those appalling demonstrations, when the EOKA terrorists, who are the centre of the demonstrations, were responsible for the deaths of Greek Cypriots and were hanged in accordance with British law at that time as well as the law in Cyprus? Will my right hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to come to the House with an explanation?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bring my hon. Friend's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I am sure that my right hon. Friend deplores what happened as much as my hon. Friend does. I understand that there has been an apology from the President for the discourtesy that this country feels has been shown on this occasion. However, it should not detract from the fact that there can be no doubt that Her Majesty the Queen will be warmly received at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Given the appalling murder of a police officer last night, I thank the Leader of the House for accepting our request for a Supply day next week in the name of the Liberal Democrats and for allowing us to debate the prevention of crime.
Can the Leader of the House tell us something about the business on the following Monday? If the House sustains the amendments to the Railways Bill that have been passed in the Lords, can he undertake that there need be no further consideration of that Bill in this House and that therefore the Bill, as then amended, will be passed into law and the Government will not seek to reverse it, once again, later next week?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the House of Lords has asked the Government


to look again at various matters, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further until that consideration is complete.

Sir Jim Spicer: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report of Dr. Jenkinson, who is acknowledged as the world's leading authority on soil science? In that report, which was published yesterday, he says that we are wasting hundreds of millions of pounds through the nitrates directive because the standards that have been set are unnecessarily high. That is just one example of the way in which the European Community has taken no account of cost benefits relating to water. Will it be possible for us to have a debate at some time relating to water and cost benefits, because we are all concerned about the protection of the environment and about the increasing cost of these unnecessary impositions on our constituents?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, understandably, has made a point which has been expressed to me in a constituency capacity by the Anglian water authority. My hon. Friend is well aware that the Government take the view that it is necessary to look at the balance between the costs and advantages of a particular policy. We are seeking to ensure that that balance is struck in our discussions on European matters.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Leader of the House aware that early-day motion 330 calling for the enactment of my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry) and has all-party support, now has well upwards of 300 signatures?
[That this House believes that anti-discrimination legislation is necessary to ensure equality of opportunity for people with disabilities; and calls for the early introduction of a Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.]
Is it not disgraceful for it to have been said that we cannot afford the provisions of the Bill? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a ministerial statement to explain to us next week why we can afford civil rights for everyone else but not for Britain's 6.5 million disabled people?

Mr. Newton: It will not surprise you, Madam Speaker, and I doubt that it will surprise the right hon. Gentleman, to learn that I do not for a moment accept the rather tendentious proposition with which he concluded his remarks. As for his earlier remarks, I shall bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People.

Mr. Peter Fry: Is my right lion. Friend aware that we have not had a debate on civil aviation for some time? Is he also aware that the present bilaterial negotiations between the United States and us seem to have reached an impasse? As failure to reach an agreement could endanger the US Air/British Airways deal, which is vital to the future of British Airways, should not the House have the opportunity to discuss this important issue before too long?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's request in mind. It is an important matter, but I cannot encourage him to expect that I can find an early opportunity for precisely the debate he requests. I shall, however, draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: As conditions in Bosnia can only deteriorate as winter approaches, when can the House have an opportunity to debate these matters and urge on the Government the need for both humanitarian and military measures to ease the plight of the Bosnian Muslims?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are two Opposition days next week when it would have been possible, had it been thought right, to explore such matters further. I cannot undertake to find Government time for such a debate in the near future but that is in no way intended to underestimate the importance of the problem. Although the hon. Gentleman may disagree with some of the views expressed from this Dispatch Box and, indeed, from the Opposition Dispatch Box, I think that he will acknowledge that there is universal concern that we should move to a negotiated peace settlement, difficult though that has proved, and that we should maintain the humanitarian effort in which the British Government and people have played a major part.

Mr. David Porter: The Government announced the new sea defence coast protection policy during the recess. Will my right hon. Friend arrange time for the House to debate it, certainly before the winter sets in and the whole of the east coast is threatened once again?

Mr. Newton: Coming from the east coast myself, I recognise why my hon. Friend has raised that matter, but, before we have got very far into business questions, we already have a list of requests for debate which would fill all the time that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Fast (Mr. Brown) wished to make available.

Mr. George Foulkes: Could the Leader of the House arrange for a short statement from the President of the Board of Trade on the 630 job losses at Jetstream Aircraft at Prestwick and especially on what action he will take to eliminate the unfair subsidies to Jetstream's competitors, both through the European Community and the general agreement on tariffs and trade?

Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to promise an early statement, but I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the appalling attacks on the Queen in Cyprus prove that the EOKA tendency is alive and well and that there is reason for the people in north Cyprus to be fearful of the proposals being made in the south? It is many years since we had a debate on Cyprus and, to some extent, the failure to settle the Cyprus problem is a failure of British foreign policy. Might my right hon. Friend speed a debate in the House in which we could fully consider the issues and help to find a solution?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bear that request in mind.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I endorse the request for more time for a debate on the Assisted Areas Order. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the order covers a wide range of constituencies, and in constituencies such as mine, in Bradford, which has been removed from the assisted areas map, it is a matter of considerable controversy and concern, and will almost certainly mean


the loss of many jobs. I am sure that many hon. Members' constituencies are similarly affected, so I hope that, rather than the debate being limited to an hour and a half, it will be given three or four hours, or even longer. The best option would be an open-ended debate, so that any hon. Member who wanted to speak could do so.

Mr. Newton: Under the normal arrangements and Standing Orders of the House, significant numbers of orders are discussed in which many hon. Members have an interest, and some of them may be frustrated as a result of our normal practices. I am sorry, but I cannot add to what I said to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East in our opening exchanges.

Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend will know that we entered the single market on 1 January. Ten months have now passed, and one of the big problems at our ports and airports is how our customs and excise men are managing to deal with drugs, tobacco, alcohol and the many other substances that seem to go through so easily these days. Is it not time that we conducted a review of their work, supported them where we can and ensured that some of the failures of the European single masrket customs system are outlined at this early stage?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is made aware of my hon. Friend's question. He is the Minister responsible for Customs and Excise and he also has an interest in much, or rather all, of the revenue gathered.

Rev. Martin Smyth: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the earlier exchange between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and myself about the possibility of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee meeting to discuss the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1993? That is an important order with a vast range, and it has come to the House 12 years after its conception. It demands greater scrutiny than would be possible during the hour and a half that would ordinarily be spent on it on the Floor of the House. Can we have a commitment that the Northern Ireland Grand Committee will meet to discuss that issue?

Mr. Newton: I did not hear the exchanges between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), the Whip sitting beside me, has just muttered to me that my right hon. and learned Friend said that the hon. Gentleman's request was a matter for me. I shall endeavour to ensure that the request that the hon. Gentleman has delivered to me across the Floor of the House—I make no complaint about that—is given appropriate consideration.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Did my right hon. Friend catch sight of the admirably succinct letter in The Times yesterday from Judge Stroyan, which said:
I am paid to administer the law, not to pontificate about it"?
In view of recent and rather rash pronouncements from some of the judiciary, will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department to make a statement to the House outlining the

rules that apply to judges' pronouncements? Many of us remember a better time when judges remained silent expect on the bench.

Mr. Newton: I am afraid that, perhaps because of the letter's admirable succinctness, my eye must have slipped over it, but I hope that all judicial eyes fell on it.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Leader of the House aware that early-day motion 2488 is on the Order Paper today?
[That this House offers its congratulations to the organisers and participants in the Pensioners' Lobby of Parliament against the imposition of VAT on gas and electricity and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to abandon this proposal; is further concerned at the facilities of the House for visitors, the humiliation of queueing outside and the lack of refreshment facilities and toilets for them; and therefore calls for an urgent review of the facilities and entrance for visitors with a view to using Westminster Hall for this.]
It congratulates the people who lobbied Parliament yesterday about the VAT that is to be imposed on fuel next year, but is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that those people suffered the normal indignities of those who try to come to Parliament to see Members—queuing for hours outside and being unable to get in, to get refreshments or to see their Members? Most arrived in and departed from London extremely frustrated.
Will the Leader of the House take it upon himself to consider as a matter of urgency the way in which lobbies are organised, so that the carriage gates entrance can be used, Westminster Hall can be used for security checks and as an assembly area, and refreshments and toilet facilities are properly available, so that people can exercise their democratic right to lobby their Members of Parliament, as they should be able to do at all times?

Mr. Newton: As you will be well aware, Madam Speaker, with your particular responsibilities, this matter is, in substantial part, a matter for the Administration Committee. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Chairman of that Committee, who is not in his place at the moment. I understand that the Committee intends to consider at an early meeting the rules that govern the organisation and reception of mass lobbies at the House.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend find it surprising that we shall not have a debate about housing next Wednesday in view of the latest local government ombudsman's report, which shows that maladministration by council housing officers is the biggest single cause of complaint, or is that why the Opposition never choose housing as a subject for debate?

Mr. Newton: It is not for me to say why the Opposition choose particular subjects for debate. However, I shall take that, if I may, as a request directed at Opposition Front-Bench Members, and no doubt they will consider it in due course.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Has the Leader of the House read the maritime report given to the House in the recent past? It reveals the appalling number of deaths of seamen because of the loss of ships at sea. Is


it not about time, especially in view of the Government's policy of deregulation, that the House addressed the issues of merchant seamen, merchant ships and safety at sea?

Mr. Newton: I made some comments about safety in regard to deregulation when I was wearing my other hat, half an hour or so ago. I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on early-day motion 2445, which was signed by the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), newly elected to the shadow Cabinet? The motion calls for cuts in defence and for the abolition of Trident.
[That this House welcomes the overwhelming vote at the Labour Party conference calling for United Kingdom defence spending to be reduced to the average level of other West European countries, allied to constructive plans for defence diversification, arms conversion and the transfer of the savings made to economic and social priorities by investment in job creation and economic development and the restructuring of Britain's crumbling infrastructure; recognises the importance of the call for making retraining of the defence sector workforce a priority; applauds the conference majority decision calling for the immediate scrapping of the Trident submarine and weapons programme as an essential step towards the elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide; believes that in rejecting Trident the United Kingdom can demonstrate genuine support for strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and bolster the consolidation of a comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; further believes that the lifetime costs of Trident deployment kwill be at least £33 billion when re-fit, replacement and decommissioning are included and that it is the hidden extra costs of continuing the United Kingdom nuclear weapons programme that is bound to reduce drastically the possibility of a positive peace dividend; and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to support the cancellation of the Trident programme and to plan the investment of resources saved into job creation and industrial innovation in the civil economy.]
Surely the House should know whether the Labour party is serious about our national security?

Mr. Newton: The thought crossed my mind that it was just possible that the hon. Member for Eccles might not have anticipated yesterday's events when deciding to sign the early-day motion earlier in the week. It seemed to me to leave room for some interesting discussions in the new shadow Cabinet in due course. There must have been quite a lot of people who were surprised—including, perhaps, the Opposition Chief Whip, whom I see here. As one rather ingenious commentator put it on the radio at lunchtime, the purpose of the rules was to bring about the election of fewer Scots and more women. The result was to get more Scots and fewer women.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the announcement this morning by the German nuclear industry that it is withdrawing from its contracts with British Nuclear Fuels? If that is followed by similar acts by other international nuclear industries, the viability of the commissioning of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant must be brought into

question. In view of the fact that the Government have consistently refused a public inquiry, surely it is proper that the House has the opportunity to debate the economic, social, environmental and proliferation problems that the THORP commissioning will bring us.

Mr. Newton: If I remember rightly, a little before the summer recess there was a debate on those matters which was initiated by the Liberal Democrats. I cannot add to what was said then, especially because, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, those matters are currently under appropriate consideration by my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Can my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on early-day motion 2453, signed by hon. Members of all parties, which calls for reconsideration of the decision by the Radio Authority to get rid of the London Broadcasting Company?
[That this House, mindful of the good service to Londoners of the London Broadcasting Corporation, and mindful of public support for it over many years, regrets the decision of the Radio Authority to withdraw its franchise and calls upon that body to reconsider this decision urgently.]
This is a very popular station with 2 million Londoners. Its demise is greatly regretted by many people and should be debated in the House at an early date.

Mr. Newton: Decisions on licences are a matter for the Radio Authority. As I think my hon. Friend will understand, Ministers do not intervene in licensing procedures or seek to influence the decisions.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Is it not about time that we had a debate on the advice that was given recently to the Transport Select Committee that the single most important measure that we can take to reduce road traffic casualties would be to introduce daylight saving and that advancing British time by one hour throughout the year would cut the number of serious and fatal accidents by 600 each year? When will the Government screw up the courage to implement that long overdue reform?

Mr. Newton: Obviously, a number of factors must be taken into account when considering those matters, including that to which the hon. Gentleman referred. My right hon. Friends will announce their proposals when they finish their consideration of all the issues involved.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House press the Prime Minister when he reports on the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference to take the opportunity to condemn the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Amanullah Khan, a Commonwealth citizen, in Brussels on Monday? Will he urge the Belgian authorities to release immediately Mr. Khan, the chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, and warn all non-EC countries that applications to extradite those visiting the EC quite legally will not be entertained in future?

Mr. Newton: I shall bring that request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Following the Government's defeat on livestock premium quotas in another place, will the Government accept that decision or oppose it? When, and in what form, will that matter be debated in this House?

Mr. Newton: I am not able at the moment to respond directly to the hon. Gentleman's question, but I will ensure that it is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: If time cannot be found next week for a Scottish ministerial statement on the report of the inquiry into the cervical smear programme scandal which took place at the Inverclyde Royal hospital, Greenock, can I assume that the Secretary of State will refer to that very important matter when he addresses the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee next Thursday?

Mr. Newton: I note that the hon. Gentleman has had the good fortune to secure the Adjournment debate on Monday 1 November when he will have an appropriate opportunity to air those matters, presumably at somewhat greater length.

Mr. David Winnick: On the grounds of fairness and open government, would it be possible for the Leader of the House to arrange for those Cabinet Ministers who have been subjected to such hostile criticism in Lady Thatcher's book to be given the right to come here and put their own point of view? Is it not somewhat unfair that Lady Thatcher has the opportunity to subject those Cabinet Ministers to such criticism, while we want to hear their right of reply?

Mr. Newton: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman would regard that as the most enormous fun, but I do not regard it as my function as Leader of the House to satisfy his appetite in that way.

National Health Service (Management)

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): With permission, I wish to make a statement about the management of the health service in England.
Our health reforms are now firmly in place and here to stay. From next April, 90 per cent. of acute and community health services will be provided by NHS trusts. Patients are already benefitting from the freedom to innovate and improve which we have given to NHS trusts, to GP fundholders and to local health authorities. By passing responsibility down to local level, we have released the innovation and energies of those working nearest to users of the service. The result has been a fundamental shift of power towards the patient.
The priority now is to support better patient care through the continued drive towards decentralisation in the NHS. I have concluded that to do this requires changes to the management structures of the health service—structures which are largely unchanged since before the reforms. By streamlining management, we can also make substantial savings in administrative costs. These changes will maximise the proportion of NHS expenditure devoted to direct patient care.
My proposals for achieving these objectives are set out more fully in a background paper, copies of which are in the Vote Office. They follow the functions and manpower review which I announced to the House in May. I should like to place on record my thanks to Kate Jenkins and Alan Langlands, who led the review, and to their team, for the work they undertook.
A guiding principle of the review was that change should support the development of the all-important purchasing function. This function is now the distinctive role of district health authorities. Their job is to build up an accurate picture of what health services local people need, and to purchase services which best match those needs. Like GP fundholders, they have the power to change and to improve services. They lead the drive towards better quality care and better health in their areas.
A key feature of better purchasing is closer working between district and family health services authorities. It makes it easier to take an all-round view, to strike the right balance between hospital and community-based care and to improve public health. These authorities are already working in close partnership in many areas. We wish actively to encourage this.
I therefore intend, subject to Parliament's consent, to introduce a power to enable district and family health services authorities to merge. Such mergers will also eliminate duplication and produce savings in overhead costs, which can be spent directly on patient care. This will build naturally on progress locally.
It is clear, however, that, as the new system matures, strategic management above that level needs to be better tailored to a decentralised service. We need a lighter approach, geared to developing the potential of purchasing, while respecting local freedoms. It must also uphold and strengthen the national accountability of the health service.
Regional health authorities have served us well for nearly 20 years. I pay tribute to their chairmen, general managers and staff, who have led the health service through challenging times. The old hands-on style of the


regions is, however, no longer appropriate. I therefore propose to abolish them. I will bring forward legislation to this effect as soon as parliamentary time permits.
In a national service accountable through the Secretary of State to Parliament, some strategic overview is required. For this reason, I also propose to reform the NHS Management Executive so that it can more effectively and efficiently discharge those functions which must remain the responsibility of central management.
The NHSME will remain within the Department of Health, but will take on a clearer identity as the headquarters of the national health service. It will be accountable, through its chief executive, to the Secretary of State for delivering against clearly defined targets and priorities. It will have precise responsibilities for strategic management and a straightforward structure to ensure cohesion and clarity of purpose.
Central management will continue to work with professionals to ensure that clinically high-quality and cost-effective practice is identified and systematically implemented, and that new health problems are tackled in a coherent way.
The national health service is the largest organisation in Europe. Its size, complexity and importance demand that central management operate through a regional structure. No institution in the world, private or public, would attempt to run such a scale of operation from a single headquarters.
I will therefore establish, as an integral part of a streamlined management executive, eight small regional offices. Each will be run by a director accountable to the chief executive. A regional structure will enable the NHSME to give more effective support to the development of local policies which provide high-quality health services to the standards set by purchasers, and the health service professions, and which ensure effective co-operation across service, education and research. The regional offices will also replace the existing outposts, and inherit their responsibility for monitoring trusts. We wish to build on the light touch approach which the outposts have successfully developed.
Like the outposts before them, the regional offices must be compact. I intend to set a limit on the total staff budget of each office, commensurate with its functions. A similar limit will be set for the Management Executive as a whole. the NHS needs strong management; but we must bear down on administrative costs to maximise spending on patients.
Health authority and trust chairmen have a key role as local leaders. They will be expected to play a prominent role in the new arrangements. We must also ensure a non-executive link between them and Ministers.
The NHS Policy Board will therefore be restructured to include additional non-executive members, each covering one of the eight new regions. These regional policy board members will provide a channel of communication to and from Ministers. They will be respected local figures, able to make a powerful contribution to ensuring that national priorities are delivered in their areas.
In light of the need for primary legislation, we expect the new arrangements to be fully in place by April 1996. We have plans, however, for making immediate progress towards a slimmer organisation. I propose to reduce the number of regional health authorities from 14 to eight by next April, and to align the boundaries of the remaining regions with those of the management executive's new

regional structure. This will facilitate a smooth transition to the new system. Change will be managed to ensure that the effective day-to-day operation of patient services is maintained. Management cost disciplines and targets will be met at each stage.
Ten years ago, this Government introduced general management into the health service. The author of those changes, Sir Roy Griffiths, observed then that it
cannot be said too often that the National Health Service is about delivering services to people. It is not about organising systems for their own sake".
That principle, above all, has guided the changes that we have announced today.
These changes will slim down NHS management. They will make it simpler and sharper. They will clarify its precise roles and responsibilities, and ensure that it delivers results measured against explicit targets. They will save money on administration to spend on patients, and they will uphold and strengthen accountability. They will continue the process of decentralisation and support the development of high-quality, cost-effective health care.
A better managed health service means better care for patients. These proposals turn the clock forward to more modern and more efficient management, building on the progress of our health reforms. I commend them to the House.

Mr. David Blunkett: I thank the Secretary of State and her office for their courtesy in allowing me to have the statement and the attached document earlier today.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm who has been in office for the past 14 years, who is responsible for the growth in bureaucracy in the national health service, and who created the National Health Service Management Executive and spent £55 million on establishing an office in Leeds and an equivalent sum on severance payments and travel costs.
Who set up the NHS trusts which led to an explosion in the number of managers, administrators and accountants? Who created 18,000 non-caring, non-patient-oriented posts at a time when 8,500 nurses were losing their jobs?
How much more money, on top of the £1·2 billion that has already been spent on NHS changes, is to be allocated to these further moves in what the Secretary of State has described as her new system? Whose system has increased waiting lists to a record 1,031,000? Who increased waiting times over the first quarter of the financial year and has created a two-tier system which the royal colleges and the British Medical Association rightly condemn? Who has demoralised staff with change after change and uncertainty after uncertainty, and who has allowed the market and competition to prevail over democracy and accountability? Where in the statement is there anything about local or regional accountability? Can the Secretary of State point to any suggestion that patients will receive a better service or improved treatment, or that they will find more money allocated to care?
Will the Secretary of State spell out a little further the way in which the regional boards which currently operate will be replaced by "respected local figures"? Those respected local figures will have responsibility, as spelled out in the attached document, for the appointment of members of the trusts and health authorities, and will account for themselves only to the new expanded NHS Policy Board. They will be gauleiters on an NHS politburo—that is what it amounts to.
Why should non-elected, non-accountable, non-democratic individuals picked out by the Secretary of State be responsible for running our service? is that not nepotism and bureaucracy gone rampant, with administrative regions replacing the present appointed regions, and individuals replacing those who sit on executive boards?
Will the Secretary of State spell out in greater detail paragraph 17 of the attached report? As she mentioned in her statement, it says that the headquarters of the health service will be at the Management Executive. What will the relationship be between the Management Executive and the Department of Health, between the outposts which make up the new regions and the Policy Board and the Department of Health? What will be the functions? Where will the responsibilities lie? They are not spelt out in the statement or the attached document. We are told that we must wait until 31 July 1994.
Where is the saving of money? How many jobs will be redeployed locally and regionally? How many jobs are to go? How much will it cost us in redundancy pay? How many savings shall we seek from the new "light touch"? Does the euphemism "light touch" mean the abandonment by the Secretary of State and Ministers of responsibility for running the service? Competition, commercialisation, nepotism and centralism are built large in a statement that purports to look after the interests of the patients.
It has recently been revealed by the chairman of the Audit Commission, appointed by the Government, that in some hospitals it takes six people to change a light bulb. How many civil servants will it take to change the Secretary of State's mind? There is no democracy, no co-ordination. Where in the statement or the attached document can the Secretary of. State point to any mention of planning of change, of co-ordination or vision of a strategy for the health service for the next 20 or 25 years? This is a shoddy statement, from a Secretary of State who is a spent force. We shall expose, attack and denigrate the fraud that is inherent in the statement this afternoon.

Sir Anthony Grant: He thinks that the shadow Cabinet elections are still on.

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has it right. The appointments to the shadow Cabinet must be motivating the hon. Gentleman.
We always know what the hon. Gentleman is against—we have had another dose of vituperation and abuse—but none of us on this side of the House is any the wiser about what he is in favour of. The long-awaited policy document from the Labour party will be an interesting experience. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is trying to reopen the battles between Nye Bevan and Herbert Morrison in 1948 about whether local government should have control over hospitals. We wait for that gap to be filled.
Much more important is the fact that I have an opportunity to address some important points. Let us be clear about the achievements of the NHS in recent years, and about the fact that those achievements are largely thanks to NHS managers. For every 100 patients that were treated before the reforms, 116 are now treated. The hon. Gentleman mentioned waiting lists. In the last year alone, the number of people waiting more than one year has fallen by 20 per cent. Before the reforms, about 170,000 people

were waiting for more than a year. The figure is now down to below.70,000. The reforms have been a major success, due in large measure to the dedication and commitment of NHS managers.
The hon. Gentleman never fails to take a cheap swipe at NHS managers. He quotes a figure of £1·2 billion but fails to acknowledge that the figure includes funds for the appointment of 100 consultants. The hon. Gentleman may think that those 100 consultants should not have been appointed.
Also contained in that £1·2 billion was a great deal of money for clinical audit and for the development of good practice. About one fifth of the money was concerned with the establishment of the NHS reforms. The benefits in terms of the improved quantity and quality of patient care have more than justified that relatively modest investment.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about accountability. Accountability in the NHS goes not only to the Secretary of State, although that will remain. Paragraph 17 states that it is not in our view appropriate to establish the NHS as a next steps agency. It is a service of great sensitivity and, understandably, hon. Members want the Secretary of State to be able to address issues that affect their constituents.
However, the hon. Gentleman—who is signed up to a command and control model—fails to understand the significance of the decentralisation down to the local health authority. That will now be strengthened by the integration with family health services authorities, allowing primary and secondary care to be dealt with by one authority. That is where accountability lies. The local health authority is the champion of local people.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Health has explained much of the thinking around the development of purchasing and the strategic shift, so that we can think of health and not only of institutions.
There has been a substantial increase in the number of authorities that are reporting to the public and making their accounts available for audit by the Audit Commission. The 400 NHS trusts will have their own boards and their own annual meetings to which the public can go. There has been a revolution in the amount of information that is available about the NHS.
The changes that we have introduced are the natural next step. The NHS reforms have been a great success, and the changes will ensure that management will see the further evolution of the reforms and will release, rightly and properly, more money for patient care.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. That exchange took precisely 19 minutes. I will now expect brisk questions from Back Benchers and brisk responses from the Secretary of State.

Mrs. Marion Roe: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement, and particularly on her offer to merge DHAs and FHSAs, which will be widely welcomed? Does she agree that, in the modern NHS, it is vital that an all-round view is taken of patient needs, including which services should be provided in hospitals and which in the community?

Mrs. Bottomley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who has the answer precisely in hand.

Mr. Terry Davis: Is the Secretary of State aware that the most visible results of her policies in Birmingham last week were patients lying on


trolleys all night in the accident and emergency unit at Heartlands hospital, because there were no beds for them? That happened not just on one or two nights, but on three nights.
Is she aware that people were being resuscitated in corridors? Is there anything in her announcement that will help to put an end to that scandal at what was the first hospital in Birmingham to become a trust?

Mrs. Bottomley: Every year, the health service treats 46 million patients. The vast majority of those patients are extremely appreciative of the care they receive. There are times when things go wrong, and when they do, it is important that the problem should be understood and urgently addressed. In Birmingham, as in many inner-city areas, there is a great legacy of hospitals from the past. As we see the strategic shift increasingly to primary care and care in the community, identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), we need to take forward those changes and invest in the patient care of today and tomorrow.

Dame Jill Knight: Have not there been great criticisms to the effect that too much money has been spent on administration and not enough on care? Does not today's statement address that point, as well as representing a further stage on the road towards sensible and wise economies in the health service? Can my right hon. Friend, first, say what money we can save, and, secondly, confirm that every penny of it will go on patient care?

Mrs. Bottomley: Earlier this year, I announced that the regions should bring their numbers down to about 200 from about 570. There has already been a 14 per cent. fall in the regions' budgets this year and the changes that I have announced will take that forward significantly, so that every penny can be spent on patient care, as my hon. Friend rightly asks that it should be. We have a health service that is directed towards meeting the needs of patients to the best of our endeavours.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Heath Government—the Tory Government—of the early 1970s decided to reorganise the health service, and spent a small fortune of the taxpayers' money? Is she aware that the net result has been that, in the past 14 years, the Tory Government have tampered with the service several times, and that what she has announced today does no more than create bigger and bigger quangos, at a time when quangos already take about 20 per cent. of public expenditure in Britain?
We do not want any lessons in democracy from the right hon. Lady, who holds her position not as a result of election but as a result of patronage, and whose arrogance is shown by the fact that she calls upon Marks and Spencer to open early—something that Thatcher and the Queen have never demanded. If the right hon. Lady wants some democracy, why does she not have the health authorities elected half by the community directly and half by those who work in the health service? That would be accountability, and it would be democratic.

Mrs. Bottomley: The model of management that the hon. Gentleman advocates would be a recipe for disaster for the patients involved. There are difficult decisions to be made in health care. The health service is an organisation consisting of 1 million people. It spends a budget of nearly

£30 billion, and that requires good and effective management. The hon. Gentleman was reopening the old debate that took place between Nye Bevan and Herbert Morrison back in 1948.
We are witnessing improvements in patient care. We are also announcing a reduction in the number of authorities because of the way in which the reforms have progressed. Trusts are a very much better model. What we want now is for purchasers to champion the interests of patients and secure progressive improvement's in the care that they provide.

Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the results of her shopping expeditions are much appreciated on both sides of the House?
Is she also aware that, in Bromley, the family health services authority and the district health authority have for some time worked closely together, with premises and a chief executive in common, and that that has led to greater efficiency and to more money being available for patient care? Will she encourage the integration of DHAs and FHSAs in anticipation of the legislation, so that we do not have to wait the two and a half or three years that it will take for it to be implemented?

Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, although only a month or two back I was being castigated for buying my clothes in second-hand clothes shops supported by mental health charities in my constituency. I was grateful to Marks and Sparks for offering to let me come in early, although—on a point of clarification—not opening early.
On my hon. Friend's serious point, I am sure that the merging of DHAs and FSAs will be widely welcomed. I thought it more than a little mean-spirited of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) not to give that proposal a warm welcome. In searching the documents desperately to ascertain what the Labour party's health policy might be, I discovered a document entitled "Your Good Health" dating from February 1992, which advocated a common health authority for primary and secondary health care, so it is a shame that the hon. Gentleman could not bring himself to give a warm welcome even to that proposal.

Ms Liz Lynne: Does the Secretary of State accept that the plans for regional health authorities will lead to more centralisation rather than less, and will take away any little accountability there may be in the health service? Does she also accept that, with the merging of the district health authorities and the FHSAs, district health authorities ought to be conterminous with local authority boundaries? Instead of appointing people to the boards, will she make a commitment to direct elections, to enable some accountability in the health service?

Mrs. Bottomley: I must make it clear that the whole purpose of the change is precisely to devolve responsibility to district health authorities, who champion the interests of local people, who establish contracts that are available to the public, and who work with general practitioners to secure improvements in the contracts year on year. The regions are a part of the history of the old command and control style. It did a good job for that sort of health service, but, if we want an evolving health service which is responsive to local needs, we must ensure that the district has the authority.
The advantage of direct elections to health authorities is a myth. I have said time and again that that aspect was rejected when the NHS was first drawn up. I do not think that anybody can seriously believe that the health service would benefit from that party political process. [Interruption.] Running the health service is a difficult job. The hon. Lady might wish to listen more than she shouts and speak to the many members of her party who are serving on health authorities and on trusts. I can give her and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) a great list of names of people in their party who are doing a magnificent job championing the interests of local people. Those people will not be grateful to her for denigrating the seriousness with which they undertake their work.

Mr. David Martin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to abolish regional health authorities, but is she aware that it is still the perception of many members of the public, as well as many people working in the national health service, that there are too many administrators? Will she ensure, as the reforms go through, that we see savings that build up not only those at the sharp end of patient care, but patient services?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for his point. We are to maintain tight budgets on administrative and overhead costs as we go forward with the further development of the reforms. My hon. Friend might like to know, however, that, of the whole budget for staff costs, about 3 per cent. goes on managers—general managers and senior managers—and 65 per cent. on direct care staff.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Minister will be aware that waiting lists in the Yorkshire region have increased considerably. Will she tell us how the abolition of the RHAs will help? Are not longer waiting lists evidence that the changes have failed? Will the executives who are to be employed in the new outposts have to include their Conservative party card in the application?

Mrs. Bottomley: That last comment was rather cheap. The hon. Lady might like to know of the great number of people from her political party who are doing a magnificant job—and have for many years—working for various authorities and various trusts.
Clearly, the patients in Yorkshire want the maximum amount spent on patient care and the minimum but necessary amount spent on overhead costs. We believe that we can streamline the services to ensure that we put more into patient care and continue the impressive improvements in the quantity and quality of patient care, in the falling waiting times and in the further developments that we have seen since the reforms were put in hand.

Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend will find no apologists on the Conservative Benches for the overblown bureaucracy of the present regions. She will know that South East Thames regional health authority has made its highest priority the capital investment of some £50 million in the Medway hospital in my constituency. Will she assure me and my constituents that the capital decisions that it has taken will not be thrown back into the melting pot as a result of her announcement today?

Mrs. Bottomley: I see no reason why the decision that I have announced today should jeopardise my hon. Friend's project. The statutory regional health authorities will remain until the anticipated legislation is completed, which will take a further two and a half years. We expect to merge the regions on those anticipated patterns in the next six months or so.

Ms Hilary Armstrong: Is the Secretary of State aware that patients in north-west Durham will greet with incredulity her statement that her reforms are meant to be in their interests?

Mr. Keith Mans: How do you know?

Ms Armstrong: I know because I live and work with them. Under previous reforms, their services have diminished and disappeared, and accessibility to them is diminishing daily.
Will the right hon. Lady assure me and them that the accident and emergency unit at Shotley Bridge hospital will be kept open, and that they will have access to that hospital and its services, which have served them well over the years?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady will know that every part of the health service must face change. Tomorrow's service configurations will not be what they were yesterday. There used to be 200,000 TB beds in this country. If we want to invest money in mentally ill people in the community, to develop services for HIV-positive patients and to develop and pioneer new innovations, we must have regard not only for the traditional ways of providing services but for the royal colleges' studies into the most effective and safest ways of providing a service.
The hon. Lady should tell her constituents that, before the reforms, the average length of wait across the country was nine months. That has now been reduced to five months. The immunisation programme has saved hundreds of thousands of children, and the cancer screening programme has been developed and extended. Since the reforms were set in hand, an extra £9 billion has been made available for the health service.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's radical and common-sense proposals. Does she find it remarkable that not one Labour Member is capable—they are probably medically incapable—of welcoming good news for patients? Will she spell it out to them that, if they oppose these proposals, they will be supporting bureaucracy, which is no surprise, but not supporting decentralisation and more money for patient care? That is a tragedy.

Mrs. Bottomley: Yes, I suggest that Labour Members read Hansard tomorrow to study my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: But does not the Secretary of State realise that this is not a reforming statement but a deformation of the health service? Is she not substituting a public service that is locally accountable with a maelstrom of contractors? There will be little choice for patients; all the choice will be for purchasers. Apart from the Secretary of State, who appoints those purchasers, and to whom are they accountable?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman seems to fail to appreciate that, whereas in the past the chairman of a health


authority was primarily concerned with running the institutions within that authority—that dominated the agenda—his task now is to assess the health needs of the population, to establish a strategy to ensure cost and quality-effective services across the range. He is no longer preoccupied with the institution; his task is now dominated by the interests of patients.
That is a very important strategic shift in the delivery of health care, which has been recognised time and again. The health authority is the champion of local people. Its job is to participate and to take note of the views of local people, so that it can take forward those changes. The hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the significance of that strategic shift, which champions the interests of patients. As with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), if the hon. Gentleman would like a list of the many distinguished members of his party who have seen the opportunities and have a vision of how the improvements can be taken forward, I shall be more than happy to give it to him.

Mr. John Whittingdale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement, which will be welcomed by all districts, particularly north Essex. Will she confirm that she will continue to move towards funding of districts on the basis of weighted capitation, and that this will be determined by a single national formula, without additional factors built into it by the regions?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am well aware of the strength of feeling among the districts and trusts about the burden of overhead costs. We are moving towards weighted capitation, which will continue to be the policy, subject to the framework set by Ministers.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: How can it possibly be decentralisation to concentrate power in fewer regions which are directly accountable to the management executive and do not meet in public? I asked the Secretary of State a question last year about the future of the regional health authorities, and she said:
The role of the regions will remain as it is".—[Official Report, 12 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 486.]
Was the Secretary of State misleading the House? Why has the situation changed? Does she realise that the regions are responsible for commissioning regional specialty services such as cardio-thoracic surgery and neonatal intensive care?
The Government have spent not a small but a large fortune dividing the health service between purchasers and providers, and now, at regional level, they are bringing together in one body the purchasing agency, the regional health authority, and the provider agency, the regional arm of the Management Executive. Is that not an admission of the failure of the purchaser-provider split?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman should study the document, when many of his points will be clarified. The role of the region is not command and control, or to dabble in the day-to-day affairs of the districts and the trusts. The new regional offices of the Management Executive will have the strength to bring together intermediate-level interests—which will address the hon. Gentleman's points—but the power goes to the districts, which are the champions of the local people and set the purchasing strategy. Intermediaries should only intervene by exception, or to set a strategic framework, or to arbitrate in

disputes. It will be a question of exception, not the command-and-control structure of the past that fossilises health care.

Sir. Dudley Smith: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals. In view of the near-criminal financial irresponsibility of the old West Midlands regional health authority, and the allegations in the past few days of severe financial incompetence on the part of the old South Warwickshire health authority, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the new bodies set up to replace them will be subject not only to auditing but to close monitoring where public money is concerned?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. Those charged with spending public money on a service as important as the national health service should operate the highest standards of public service. My hon. Friend will know that we have set up a task force on probity, accountability and openness. The Government's corporate principles are set out in the Cadbury report, and a report will shortly be produced for use throughout the health service.
I share my hon. Friend's concern. The vast majority of people in the health service are deeply committed to providing improved patient care, but when anything goes wrong, it is right that we should leave no stone unturned in setting it right and learning lessons.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Who are the local worthies who can now make the difficult decisions in the national health service that cannot be made by people who would be accountable by being elected? Can the "shop alone" Secretary of State also tell us why, given the chaos that she has created in London's health services, she has not created a regional health authority for London?

Mrs. Bottomley: We have been round this issue fairly often, and perhaps one Opposition Member might be able to think of a different question to ask. Members of the Labour party, like members of all parties, are welcome to submit names for health authority appointments; they come from many different regions. I have to give the same answer that I gave before—that, if any Opposition Members wish, I can put them in touch with many of their party associates who are involved in the improvements. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have heard the answer before."] I have heard the question before, and I am afraid that Opposition Members have to hear the answer again.
I am more than happy to discuss the important subject of London. London has special needs, and its 45 hospitals, which include many teaching hospitals, have special circumstances, but the problems are best tackled by maintaining South Thames and North Thames regions, so that the people involved in those health authorities are aware of the pressure of the outlying districts of the home counties, which are supporting health care in London to the tune of £100 million this year. It is important to keep that process in place.

Mr. James Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all those who wish for strong local purchasing will welcome the announcement that she made today about the powers of DHAs and FHSAs? Those people include patients in south-west Hertfordshire, who already enjoy the benefits of a strong local purchaser. Does she agree that the reforms that she announced today will


help managers and professionals to work together with purchasers to promote high-quality care and the best clinical practice?

Mrs. Bottomley: Yes.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Will the Secretary of State clarify a subject that was unclear from her statement? Will she give some sign as to the future employment prospects at Quarry house in Leeds for the National Health Service Management Executive? Will she dispel the rumours in Leeds that hundreds of jobs are to be lost at Quarry house? Having spent £55 million on a new building, any Government that can plan their business so badly that they create those jobs, relocate the staff and then lose jobs within a matter of six months are wholly incompetent and do not deserve to be in office.

Mrs. Bottomley: People who work in Quarry house are very concerned that the hon. Gentleman—of all people —should have been the first to undermine their arrival in Leeds. Any organisation of the size and complexity of the national health service needs a headquarters office, and any Conservative Member would have welcomed all those people coming to Leeds, rather than, from the word go, making them feel unwelcome and undervalued.
As to costings, the relocations to Quarry house will bring about substantial savings. There were 25 sites all told in London, and the move has substantially reduced the number of sites, which will lead to savings of about £10 million a year once the immediate costs have been met. The people in Leeds, like the people in regions, will have discussions about how those changes effect them. They are having discussions at this moment. It is not possible to give precise figures, but we need a health service with appropriate management. We have moved on from the reforms. There are new challenges and new needs.
I urge the hon. Gentleman to take pride in Leeds as the headquarters of the national health service and not to seek every opportunity to denigrate and undermine it.

Mr. James Pawsey: The reforms that were announced by my right hon. Friend this afternoon were extensive. Will she elaborate on what she intends to do to improve accountability to the community, to Ministers and, through Ministers, to the House? It may help my right hon. Friend to know that I am thinking especially of proposals that might be put forward by health authorities to regrade or close hospitals.

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is a champion of the services in his constituency. It is important that district health authorities, especially when they merge with FHSAs, work hard to secure the involvement and participation of local people. Many Opposition Members mentioned elected representatives on health authorities. I do not believe that that is the right way forward, any more than Nye Bevan did; I believe that the right way forward is proper communication and understanding with local authorities, and especially with the Member of Parliament. The community health council has an important role to play. If a proposal does not meet with the agreement of the community health council, it comes to Ministers for decision.

Mr. John Gunnell: It is precisely because I was appointed to a health authority that I would express concern about one aspect of the strucyture that the right hon. Lady put forward., Will she explain how the eight people who will liaise with her will be responsible for the appointment of 540 boards? In those circumstances, how can those eight people be other than people who are acceptable to Conservative central office? Will not the changes centralise political control but fragment the strategy for health care?

Mrs. Bottomley: As I understand it, there has been little change for many years in the way in which chairmen are appointed, whatever political party has been in control. I pay a warm tribute to those people who, selflessly and with tremendous energy, have been so successful as chairmen either of NHS trusts or of DHAs or FHSAs.
The answer lies in hon. Members' hands. If they know of people who have the dedication, energy and commitment to serve in that way on health authorities, they must submit their names.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the abolition of regional health authorities will be warmly welcomed in my constituency? There the Government health reforms have led to both hospitals adopting trust status, 80 per cent. of the population are now treated by GP fundholders and there is a better standard of services in acute and primary medicine than ever before.
Can she assure the House that there will be no transfer of staff, automatic or otherwise, from regional health authorities to the regional offices of the health service executive? In that way, administration in the national health service will be reduced and patient services will be improved.

Mrs. Bottomley: The new regional offices will be on the model of the zonal outposts which have been monitoring the trusts. That light approach is the one that we wish to pursue. I am delighted to hear of the successes in my hon. Friend's constituency, as he knows that, from next April, 90 per cent. of our provider units will be NHS trusts, leading to better care for patients.

Ms Tessa Jowell: Does the Secretary of State accept that the market created by her health reforms in London is creating chaos with the well-being and serenity of hundreds of thousands of patients who depend on London hospitals for their treatment? Will she give an assurance today to the 500 patients at the kidney unit at King's that they have nothing to fear, that their treatment at King's will continue unimpeded, and that a threat no longer hangs over the unit, which is their lifeline?

Mrs. Bottomley: I cannot give that assurance to the hon. Lady, and she knows why as well as anyone. In the past 80 years, 20 reports have said that there had to be change in London. No change is no option.
One of the great problems in London is that local people were deprived of routine district general hospital services because of the tremendous multiplication and fragmentation of specialty services. I am deeply concerned about the uncertainty that inevitably has to continue a little longer in some of the hospitals.
We have had independent reviews from research and from clinical experts, and we shall take decisions in the near future as to how we can take forward health care in


London. In order to release resources for routine care for the men, women and children of London, we have to tackle that problem. The hon. Lady knows that as well as anyone in my Department.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the first part of her statement will be widely welcomed by those working in the health service at grassroots level, but that the second part might be less welcome? In view of the fact that district health authorities are responsible for their budgets and for ensuring health care, is there really any need for continuing the layer of bureaucracy over their activities? Could we not grasp the nettle and scrap the lot now?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is asking me to go further, faster, than anyone else in the House. He has rightly identified the resentment at the unnecessary layer of bureaucracy above the local health authority and provider units, which must have the greatest significance. Frankly, there is a role for a strategic body—an intermediate tier—to intervene in the market where appropriate; for example, to ensure that specialty services are properly identified or to intervene in disputes. However, it must mean intervening by exception rather than the command-and-control, rather stultifying approach of the past. We are determined that greater resources for direct patient care will come out of it.

Ms Dawn Primarolo: Will the Secretary of State explain why she praises managers in the national health service but then announces that she is going to sack them? Does she agree that her definition of decentralisation means the break-up of the national planning structure for the NHS? Will she explain what will happen to strategic planning and public health policy when she abolishes her new regions?
Finally, how many doctors' posts will be created as a result of her changes? The right hon. Lady surely must be aware that we have the lowest ratio of doctors—1·4—per thousand of population in Europe. Is her hidden agenda to privatise the health service by the end of the century by using a next steps agency?

Mrs. Bottomley: I have made it clear that we are not establishing a next steps agency. In characteristic style, the hon. Lady seems to think that no one in any organisation should ever have their job reviewed. That is only what I would expect from her, as she has totally sold out to the health unions and is blinkered from the needs of patients.
I respect, and have a great debt of gratitude towards, many extremely able health service managers, but one has to have the structure and management lines appropriate for the organisation—it is not a job creation scheme which never changes for fear of anyone being put in any short-term difficulty. Of course it is our intention to invest extra money in patient care, whether through nurses or doctors.
Finally, clear priorities and planning guidance are sent out. They are approved by me, as the Secretary of State, and sent out by the national health service. We have made it clear, as the hon. Lady will see when she studies the documents, that we want more explicit targets and better measurements of outcome, rather than merely measurements of inputs. All the Opposition think about is jobs for

the boys and girls, and the union interest. We think about patient care and output from the service, and that is what we want to hold the health service to account for.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A month ago, as the chair of the London group of Labour Members of Parliament, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health asking for an urgent meeting of London Members with her, to discuss the health service in London and the 150,000 people on the waiting list. One month later, I received a reply from the Minister of Health referring me to the health authorities in London as the only bodies competent to answer our queries. Is that accountability to this House, or is it fudging the issue?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is attempting to ask a question which he had hoped to put directly to the Secretary of State for Health. It is certainly not a point of order.

Sir Anthony Grant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. While I entirely accept your right and duty to select questions from whatever source you think fit—you have not been helped by the long-windedness of the two Front Benches—you will appreciate that no one from the East Anglian region has been called during our discussions of the health service. As you will appreciate, two world-famous hospitals—Papworth and Addenbrooke's—are in that region. Perhaps, when the subject comes up again, that will be borne in mind.

Madam Speaker: I shall certainly keep that in mind, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman—this is a good opportunity for me to place it on record—that I am always anxious for hon. Members who seek to question a statement to be here at the beginning of it. That is a courtesy to the Minister. Some hon. Members, whose names I have listed, were not in the Chamber at the beginning of the statement. Therefore, when I have a choice to make, I shall obviously select those who were in at the beginning.

BILL PRESENTED

TAXATION OF DOMESTIC FUEL AND POWER (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Nigel Spearing, supported by Mr. Ron Leighton and Mr. Tony Banks, presented a Bill to repeal section 42 of the Finance Act 1993; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 29 October, and to be printed. [Bill 255.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

VALUE ADDED TAX

That a further sum, not exceeding £1,807,298,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Home Office on compensation for criminal injuries, probation, police and superannuation payments for police and fire services.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matter relating exclusively to Scotland).

WOMEN'S ISSUES

That the Matter of Women's Issues in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

Royal Assent

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Welsh Language Act 1993
National Lottery, etc. Act 1993

Orders of the Day — European Economic Area Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill implements the European Economic Area agreement, which will create the world's largest single market, consisting of 12 Community member states and six of the states in the European Free Trade Association. Perhaps I should remind the House that those states are Austria, Finland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Sweden. The seventh EFTA state, Switzerland, chose last December not to participate. For the sake of brevity, I shall use the term EFTA to refer to those states that will be part of the EEA.
May I remind the House at the beginning of this debate that the agreement was considered in a scrutiny debate on the Floor of the House in February 1992. The motion in favour of the agreement was approved without a Division.
The Government have tabled amendments to take account of a protocol signed in March by the participating states, which enables the agreement to enter into force without Switzerland. The Bill as introduced, taken together with the Government amendments, will implement the agreement as amended by the protocol.
We should not underestimate the trade benefits that the agreement will bring. It will create an area of 18 countries throughout which the four freedoms—for the movement of goods, capital, services and people—will apply. Most of the provisions of the Community single market will be extended to apply to the whole of that area.
EFTA countries will have to adapt their legislation to make it consistent with the single market rules. Community member states will have to amend their legislation, where required, to cover the whole of the EEA.
The agreement will create a market with equal conditions of competition and the same trading rules, stretching from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. As the House will recall, the agreement was originally due to enter into force on 1 January 1993. Switzerland's decision meant that that date could not be met. It will now enter into force once all EEA and EFTA states have ratified. We expect the' last states to do so this autumn, allowing the agreement to become effective by the beginning of 1994.
Liechtenstein will probably come on board some time later, after issues relating to its close ties with Switzerland have been resolved. The protocol allows for that, as does one of the Government amendments to the Bill.
When the agreement enters into force, the principal means by which it will extend the four freedoms is through the inclusion in the agreement of articles based on key articles from the European Economic Community treaty. It will include in its annexes some 1,500 single market measures.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister referred to the extension of rights and entitlements from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. Does he accept that, as part of the EC, some of the alleged advantages do not extend to Gibraltar.

Mr. Sainsbury: I know my hon. Friend's concern about Gibraltar, but the arrangements there have been in position since the United Kingdom's accession in 1972. For some matters, such as Gibraltar-based banks, we hope to make the necessary provisions in due course, but if there are other aspects relating to Gibraltar, perhaps, my hon. Friend would like to enlarge upon those in his own remarks.
As I was saying, the agreement will include in its annexe some 1,500 single market measures, but in addition the EFTA countries will be subject to competition and state aid rules based on those of the Community. The agreement will also establish increased co-operation between the Community and EFTA in Community programmes in areas such as research and development, information services, education, training and youth, small and medium-sized enterprises and tourism.
The EEA is a dynamic agreement, so EFTA will take on new measures related to the four freedoms as they are adopted by the Community. That will ensure that the agreement continues to reflect business reality.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister is extolling the virtues of the arrangements and the legislation, so why is it that a country such as Japan seems to have a buoyant economy by and large, without the need for all the countries linking together in a single market? We were told in 1973 that our entry into the Common Market would give us entry into that wonderful market. We are now being told that it is to be made a bigger market, yet it all comes to nothing. We have a high level of unemployment, as do all the EC countries. Could he not make clear the reasons for the distinction between our failure and Japan's success?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman invites me to depart rather a long way from the measure that we are debating. I hope that he will recognise that one has to look at the economic and geographical circumstances and the historic background of any individual country.
The most interesting point relevant to his scepticism is that not only do the EFTA countries wish to join the EEA of their own free choice—they see the benefits it will bring to their economies—but four of those countries have chosen to become full members of the Community, seeking as we do the advantages it brings to our economies and to our people.
To ensue that EFTA states comply with the rules in the agreement, EFTA will create a surveillance body with powers similar to those of the Commission plus a court with a role similar to that of the European Court and the operation of the agreement will be overseen by a council consisting of Ministers and EC Commissioners on a joint committee. The joint committee will be responsible for the day-to-day running of the agreement, resolving disputes and agreeing amendments to annexes to the agreement in order to take on new Community measures.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister because I wish to refer to the point that he has just made and it might be better to get a response from him now rather than later. He said that there will be a joint organisation between the EFTA Governments and Ministers and the Commission. It may be one commissioner, it may be more. Is it not something of an anomaly that representatives of elected bodies and Governments are meeting perhaps as an EFTA or EEA

council—six of them meeting one or perhaps two or three commissioners who are, after all, officials? Will they not be meeting the political Ministers to whom the Commission proposes legislation?

Mr. Sainsbury: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that these arrangements were discussed at great length by the Ministers representing the EFTA countries and the Council of Ministers of the European Community. Of course, there will continue to be very close, contact and meetings between all the Ministers of the EEA.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I think I am right in saying that the European Court of Justice objected to certain powers being given to the new EEA court. What is the relationsships between the two courts? If a decision were to be taken by the EEA court, could that be appealed to the court in Luxembourg?

Mr. Sainsbury: There were some rather lengthy and complex, and speaking as a non-lawyer, legalistic negotiations on these matters. As a non-lawyer, it might be better if I wrote in response to the point the hon. Gentleman raises to make sure that we that get the legal reply quite correct.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Sainsbury: I want to make progress in due course, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Jenkin: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and I may be able to throw some light on this discussion. Was there not a disagreement within the European Community concerning the European Court of Justice and its jurisdiction, in that it was insisting that it would be the supreme body in the overall organisation of the EC and EFTA? Is it not significant that, having established that superiority over the activities in the EEA states, there is a risk that the measure could be more centralising than we would wish, given that the European Court of Justice has tended to be one of the architects of European centralisation?

Mr. Sainsbury: Again, I would say to hon. Friend that the negotiations on this point were lengthy, complex and dominated by the lawyers, of whom I am not one.
There is provision for that committee to consider the, implications of divergent jurisprudence and to take measures to deal with any problems that arise with it. That suggests that the superiority to which my hon. Friend refers was not clear cut and that arrangements were entered into to deal with that complication. Perhaps I could write to hon. Friend as well as to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).

Mr. John Biffen: My hon. Friend promises to write, but I think that there might be some virtue in having matters of such moment on the record in Hansard.

Mr. Sainsbury: I take note of what my right hon. Friend says. Perhaps we can put the letter in the Library or arrange for its information to be conveyed.
I do not want to get too far into the complex legal arrangements for the interplay between the two courts, but I would say to my right hon. Friend, as I said to my hon.


Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), that there are arrangements for the resolution of any problems arising from what is called a divergent jurisprudence.
I was just about to draw to the attention of the House the fact that Community member states will have to amend their legislation to cover the entire area. That is the purpose of the Bill that we are now considering. It will implement the United Kingdom's obligations under the agreement and allow the United Kingdom to ratify the agreement.
he Bill contains three main provisions. Clause 1 makes the agreement a Community treaty in the United Kingdom law, clause 2(1) is a general rule that affords EFTA nationals and companies treatment equivalent to that already given under United Kingdom law to Community nationals and companies. Clause 3(1) is a general rule that implements the United Kingdom's obligations under the agreement where the first two provisions do not apply.
I will describe the provisions briefly in turn. Clause 1 of the Bill amends section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 by adding the agreement to the list of Community treaties in that section, so obligations arising from the agreement will be treated as Community obligations under United Kingdom law and section 2 of the 1972 Act will apply to them.
EEA provisions that are directly applicable—for example, the competition articles of the agreement and EEA measures corresponding to EC regulations—will take effect in the United Kingdom without the need for further domestic legislation.
Where further domestic legislation is required to implement provisions of the agreement, powers need to be provided for that purpose. An example of that is the provisions in the annex to the agreement corresponding to directives. It is there that the two general rules contained in clauses 2(1) and 3(1) will operate.
Clause 2(1) contains the first general rule. The principle behind the rule is straightforward. Where existing legislation covered by the agreement contains reference to the communities, or some connection with the communities, such as member states, those references will be substituted by corresponding references to the European Economic Area—or some connection with the area—or to both the communities and the area. That substitution will apply where the legislation is limited in its operation by reference to the communities. In that way, EFTA nationals and companies will be treated under the legislation in question in the same way as Community nationals and companies.
The second general rule, in clause 3(1), will operate only where the first does not apply. Clause 3(1) modifies provisions in United Kingdom legislation and certain other instruments where equivalent treatment will not be conferred by clause 2(1). It modifies those provisions only in so far as it is necessary to implement the United Kingdom's obligations under the agreement. It is intended to cater for legislation on which clause 2(1) will not bite, but which has to be amended to implement the agreement.
The agreement is the most ambitious and wide-ranging to be entered into by the Community with third countries. It will create the world's largest single market with 370 million consumers, responsible for more than 40 per cent. of the world's trade. It will lead to benefits for both

consumers and companies throughout the 18 countries. It will provide for closer co-operation between the Community and its closest European neighbours.
I should add that we are not ignoring the importance of our trade relations with Switzerland. If the Swiss decide in future to join the EEA, we shall welcome that decision. In the meantime, the Community and Switzerland are working to develop relations by improving on existing EC/Switzerland free trade agreement.
The United Kingdom is particularly well placed to benefit from the agreement. We have well established trade lines with all EFTA countries, partly because of geography and partly because of our previous membership of EFTA. In 1992, we made £5.7 billion of visible exports to the six EFTA states that will participate in the EEA. That business has been won by a wide range of industries and the agreement will bring further opportunities for exports from Britain through opening up services and public purchasing, shared research and development programmes and the extension of common technical standards and regulations.
There is a substantial potential benefit for the services sector. Financial services will be able to "passport" into EFTA countries. The aviation market will be opened up through the extension of EC aviation measures such as those on competition and passenger capacity. United Kingdom professionals will be able to offer their services across all 18 member states of the EEA. I can assure the House that my Department will play a full part in helping our companies take advantage of these new opportunities.
Earlier this year, we set up the Business in Europe service to help firms succeed in the new Europe, created by both the single market and the EEA. We shall give companies help on the practical aspects of selling in Europe, information on the new trade rules and assistance if they face unfair barriers to trade. We are in addition recruiting four export promoters specifically for the EFTA countries, including Switzerland.
The creation of the EEA is entirely in line with the Government's commitment to develop a Community that is open, market-oriented and outward-looking. It will ensure that trade within the larger part of Europe is based on the principles of open market and open economy that we hope will extend one day throughout the whole of Europe.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My right hon. Friend is kind to give way so much. Will there be a further advantage in contributions from the EFTA states of the EC? It seems, from reading this complex treaty, that on page 215, in protocol 32, provision is made for contributions by the EFTA states to the EC. Will that involve a lot of money, and will we benefit a great deal in consequence?

Mr. Sainsbury: There is a cohesion fund—an expression with which I suspect that my hon. Friend is familiar—which will enable the EEA countries to make a contribution to the poorest parts, or poorer parts, of the Community. Among the beneficiaries will be Northern Ireland.
A further and substantial advantage of the agreement is that it is greatly facilitating the negotiations that are currently under way with four of the EFTA states—Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden—for them to join the Community as full members. The Government strongly support their applications.
Although enlargement of the Community is an important goal, the agreement remains significant in its own right. It creates a market that represents almost half of the world's trade. Its benefits will be enjoyed by consumers and businesses alike. It will ensure that trade within western Europe is based on the principles of an open market economy. British exporters want to win the new business that is available to them from the new opportunities that the agreement creates, and want to do so without delay. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I thank the Minister for his concision on a Bill that is important to the House, as we saw yesterday in the procedural motion that we debated and are now taking through all its stages today.
Her Majesty's Opposition welcome the Bill. We welcome the underlying principle, which is to extend the single market from the European Community to the EFTA countries. As the Minister said, through the agreement that we are debating and the subsequent modification of Community law, we are seeing the creation of a single market of 18 countries, with 380 million consumers.
Notwithstanding the high levels of unemployment throughout the European Community—alluded to yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whom I am glad to see in his place, beside my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)—the fact remains that the European economic area will become the largest and richest single marketplace in the world.
The prospect has been opened up that as nation states in central and eastern European countries break away from their communist past, with their centralised economies, they may also join the European economic area, perhaps by the end of the decade.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We have heard all these stories about this Common Market claptrap for 22 years: if we can make the market bigger, it will be better for Britain. I remember that, when West Germany annexed East Germany, people said that it was going to widen the market and that everybody would be better off as a result. We all know now that the British taxpayer is footing the
bill for the annexation of East Germany, and to some tune.
I remember—those golden days in retrospect—when Britain used to build ships. We used to put manufactured goods in them, send them to the four corners of the earth. They used to come back. Some of them had Commonwealth preference. We used to put food in the ships. It was a nice little earner. We used to sell our manufactured goods. We had a balance of trade surplus. We do not now have a shipbuilding industry; the Government have ruined that. We have a deficit with every Common Market country on trade. The whole thing has been an unmitigated disaster from beginning to end. Now my hon. Friend is saying, "If only we can make it a bit bigger, we can have even more of this claptrap."

Mr. Bell: I am glad that my hon. Friend managed in his intervention to mention Mr. Arthur Daley and his nice little earner.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend talked with his usual eloquence of socialism in one country. He will be happy to note from the response given by the Minister to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that, under the

cohesion agreement, a fund will be set up to assist poorer regions of the Community. It will consist of 500 million ecu in grants over five years plus an interest rate subsidy of 3 per cent. on 1·5 billion ecu of loans. As the Minister said, that covers Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Greece, Portugal and most of Spain. As socialists, we are all keen on the transfer of wealth from those who have to those who have not and on a proper distribution of that wealth to the poorer regions.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Given the Government's new stand that a single currency and economic and monetary union are no longer an immediate prospect, is it realistic to think that such importance will be placed on the cohesion funds in future? As I understand it, the purpose of the cohesion funds was to encourage the convergence that made a single currency possible.

Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman, who followed the Maastricht debates with great interest and enthusiasm, has touched on a point of great embarrassment to the Government. The Heads of Government will shortly meet again. The Prime Minister and the Government say one thing in the House, but they will have to say something else to the Heads of Government, who propose to continue along the route to a single currency, because they tell the House that we do not. When that debate takes place, it will be interesting to see where we are going.
To return to my earlier train of thought, as the Minister said, we are debating the most ambitious and wide-ranging agreement to be entered into by the Community in relation to third countries.

Sir Teddy Taylor: rose—

Mr. Bell: I just want to make one point to my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover and for Bradford, South, who are following the debate with interest, as are my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
We shall hear opposition to the Bill on the Floor of the House, but one should consider the difficulties of the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, the difficulties of the new American free trade area between the United States, Canada and Mexico, and the long haul of Maastricht not only in Britain but throughout the EC. Here we have European neighbours coming together in an area where there is to be free movement of goods, capital, services and people, under an agreement which includes consumer protection, environmental protection—which is important to the Labour party, the Government and those who consider such issues with care—statistics and company law; an agreement which will lead to the enlargement of the European Community.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend sought to make the case that there was some sort of redistribution of wealth in this arrangement. Would he care to comment on the idea that the common agricultural policy, sustained by Common Market expenditure, on which 70 per cent. of EC funds are spent, destroys the agriculture of the developing nations, results in large quantities of food being dumped on world markets and is harmful to the very poorest of the poor? Year after year, we are told by proponents of the Common Market that that will be changed, but it gets worse. More


money is being spent and there are more food surpluses and mountains. Yet now EFTA wants to help to prop up that discredited and disgraceful regime.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The common agricultural policy is not part of the agreement and it does not extend to the new economic area. When the matter was raised in the other place, Lord Peston, on behalf of the Opposition, said of those in the EFTA countries, "Lucky them." My hon. Friend's point goes to the heart of the GATT round at this moment and the discussions and debates there.
In the Community that we are seeking to create and enlarge, we want basic freedoms to be enlarged in relation to political identity and harmonisation, with common institutions that will bind us together. I confirm what the Minister said earlier, that the Opposition look on the European economic area as a stage on the way to enable countries in the EFTA area to make their entry into the EC.

Dr. Godman: Part III of the treaty, which relates to the free movement of persons and so on, is of more than passing interest to numerous constituents of mine who work in the offshore oil and gas industries. Is my hon. Friend aware that very few United Kingdom registered vessels operate in the Norwegian sector, whereas in the United Kingdom sector the picture is entirely different? Is my hon. Friend confident that there will be a more even distribution of work in the two oil and gas sectors following the establishment of the treaty?

Mr. Bell: The provisions on the free movement of persons will create a right for Community and EFTA nationals to work anywhere in that area. That is a coherent part of the agreement on the European economic area with the final Act and declarations. Community and EFTA nationals will be able to operate as self-employed persons throughout the area and to set up and manage undertakings under the same conditions as local nationals. Therefore, my hon. Friend's point is covered by the agreement. It is agreed in the text and words, and we hope that it will be shown in deeds.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I do not want to be too hard on the Minister in view of his dramatic announcement a few moments ago that Northern Ireland will now be eligible for grants from the cohesion fund. Will not that be great news for the port of Larne, which was told before that Northern Ireland was not eligible?

Mr. Bell: I hope that it is good news for the people of Northern Ireland. That was clearly stated by Baroness Denton in the other place when she took the Bill through the House last November.
We note that the European economic area agreement does not extend to VAT or to other areas of taxation. That was touched on yesterday in the procedural debate. The EFTA countries will not be obliged to apply VAT in their countries, but as and when they join the Community as full members they will do so. The same applies to customs union. There are no plans for the European economic area to become a customs union. EFTA is not a customs union. The seven EFTA states have different external tariffs. However, on becoming full members of the Community, EFTA states will have to join the union. Community

fishermen will have increased access to Norwegian and Icelandic grounds and reduced tariffs for trade in fish between Community and EFTA countries.

Dr. Godman: Will Spanish fishing vessels have the same rights as those few United Kingdom vessels that now fish in Norwegian waters, despite the fact that the former have no history of fishing in those waters yet the latter have fished in northern Norwegian waters for many generations?

Mr. Bell: I seem to be taking over the Minister's role in interpreting the agreement and various documents, such as those on the European economic area and business in Europe. I am sure that the Minister, with his vast staff, can answer those questions better than I can. However, the European economic area is what it says it is, so I think that I can confirm what my hon. Friend says.
Again, I am not the Minister. I suppose that the only good thing is that while I am on the Floor of the House, I cannot be sued for slander, defamation of character or negligence if I get anything wrong. However, the point was made.

Dr. Godman: It was a good point.

Mr. Bell: It was, and an important one for fishermen.
Britain accounts for a large part of protected salmon, herring and mackerel interests, but the Bill does not amount to an extension of the Community's common fisheries policy to EFTA. During yesterday's short debate on a procedural motion, a plea was made for a two-day debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said that the Opposition had asked for two days. That was the wish of the shadow trade and industry team, but the decision to have a one-day debate was made through the usual channels. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said that the usual channels went back to 1992; but the decision had nothing to do with the shadow trade and industry team.
One irony of yesterday's debate occurred when the hon. Member for Southend, East looked across at my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and asked whether he had heard a Conservative Minister speaking at the Tory party conference. Some of us have a vivid imagination and can visualise my hon. Friend attending the Tory party conference as a delegate and speaking at a fringe meeting about socialism in one country and in our time. That would be a great wonder to behold.
In fact, the Tory party conference was attended by the Swedish Prime Minister, who addressed a fringe meeting on the merits of the agreement that is before the House. I hope that the Swedish Prime Minister said—although this was not reported in the press—that Sweden supported the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty and that if Sweden ever signed up to it, it would also sign up to the social chapter.
At another Tory party conference fringe meeting, the Secretary of State for Social Security unveiled himself like Superman and declared that there would be two sets of measures to clamp down on benefits paid to foreigners. The first was that foreigners allowed into the United Kingdom on condition that they would not claim benefits would be prevented from doing so. That was at best an illogical statement. How can someone who has entered the country promising that he will not claim benefits


subsequently be prevented from doing so? Nevertheless, the Secretary of State received a standing ovation for making such a statement.
The right hon. Gentleman also proposed preventing benefit tourism by introducing a requirement that one must live in the United Kingdom before being allowed to claim. He said that many foreign claimants are allowed into the United Kingdom on the express condition that they would be no burden on the public purse. I hope that those remarks were not made at the fringe meeting attended by the Swedish Prime Minister, because he would have been saddened to hear that he was considered a foreigner and that his subjects should not be allowed to become benefit tourists.
Let our imaginations run wild—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not allow his imagination to range so wide that his remarks bear no relation to the Bill.

Mr. Bell: I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House that my remarks will relate to the Bill. According to the Secretary of State for Social Security, benefit tourists will be guided away from those beaches that do not meet European directives on bathing waters—a point to which the Minister for the Environment and Countryside referred yesterday.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend believe that the comments of the Secretary of State for Social Security at the Tory party conference were a coded indication of opposition to part of the Bill? That part of the explanatory memorandum dealing with its financial effects states:
There may be a small amount of additional expenditure as a result of the application of the Income Support Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1967) to EFTA nationals. However, it is not possible to predict how many EFTA nationals, will claim income support, so precise expenditure is not possible to estimate.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should provide such an estimate, particularly when income support is under savage attack by the Government?

Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is perfectly right to draw attention to the coded messages that are sent from one Secretary of State or Minister to another. Yesterday, we heard a sad comment from the hon. Member for Southend, East that statements made by Ministers at party conferences do not always turn out exactly as one would imagine. We believe that the statements to which I have referred reflect the thoughts of Ministers, and that the Secretary of State hoped that we would not notice them—or the fact that he was speaking contrary to the wishes of members of the Treasury Bench, in dealing with the Bill.

Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend seems to have detailed knowledge of all aspects of the agreement, so I will refer to one of concern to many working in Scottish salmon farming. Is my hon. Friend confident that the agreement will protect the interests of those employed in that industry from unfair practices by Norwegian salmon farmers? Before the agreement was signed, the Community, by means of the imposition of tariffs, protected the interests of Scottish salmon farmers against the dumping of Norwegian salmon in Community markets. Is there any protection against that kind of behaviour in the agreement?

Mr. Bell: I am always glad to stand in for the Minister and answer such questions. I repeat my earlier remark shat a large part of the protected herring, salmon and mackerel

interests will remain protected in accordance with the agreement, and that the Bill will not extend the Community's common fisheries policy to EFTA. My hon. Friend was right to raise that important issue and to demand an answer from the Minister. We will help the Minister by putting our questions formally, so that they will appear on the Order Paper.
We contrast the remarks made by the Secretary of State for Social Security with those made by the Foreign Secretary at the Cornwall European constituency council lunch on 15 October. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover was invited to that function, but there he would have heard the Foreign Secretary say that we must reconquer the high ground of Europe.
That is a remarkable statement by the Foreign Secretary of a Government who found themselves in a minority of one during consideration of the Maastricht agreement. They had to get themselves two opt-outs; they struggled in the House of Commons for six to nine months before they were able to pass the Maastricht agreement; and, at the end of the day, they required a vote of confidence. If that is reconquering the high ground, it astonishes me to think that the Foreign Secretary ever knows where the high ground is.
We have seen the Government fritter away the opportunities of having a European central bank in London. They tell the nation how the City of London will be protected and enhanced by their action, yet we have lost all hope of having a European central bank. [Interruption.] The universal applause from Conservative Back Benchers will please the City of London, which for many years has bankrolled the Conservative party and provided votes at general elections. It is astonishing—

Mr. Sainsbury: Perhaps what was most revealing about the lengthy procedures on the Maastricht Bill was the Opposition's approach. Some Opposition Members, although not those below the Gangway, claimed to be in favour of the European Community but consistently voted against it.

Mr. Bell: We found ourselves in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with a Conservative Swedish Prime Minister on the terms of the social chapter and on the fact that it should be part of the Maastricht treaty. Had the Minister supported the social chapter, we would not have had six months of long and lengthy debate. The social chapter is agreed by the other nation states and would be agreed by Sweden and the EFTA countries.
It was astonishing to see the Government scuttled on so-called black Wednesday, when the pound came out of the exchange rate mechanism. We saw how the Government took refuge in a straightforward devaluation of the pound to become the party of devaluation. [Interruption.] We will remember that applause. We will remember for the nation how the Tory party became the party of devaluation. The Government were unable to hold a common line on monetary policy with our European partners. So they had better find out where to begin the conquest of the high ground of Europe and be sure that they carry enough oxygen to get them there.
The Foreign Secretary said at the Cornwall constituency council meeting that "ours" is a positive message. They are so positive about this Bill that, as the hon. Members for Southend, East and for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said yesterday,


it has lain in the Vote Office for a year. That shows how limp the Government are when it comes to getting measures through the House of Commons.
How will the Bill help our business community? The Opposition believe that small firms will be able to benefit from cross-research and development and cross-trading opportunities. We know that United Kingdom business has welcomed the agreement. Our exports to the EFTA countries, referred to by the Minister, are about £7·5 billion —equivalent to two thirds of our exports to the United States.
I referred earlier to the prospect of failure of the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. There is also the prospect of failure of the American free trade area agreements with Canada and Mexico. The world is drifting towards protectionism, a beggar-thy-neighbour attitude and policies that would lead to more stagnation and recession. We should contrast that picture with the situation in Europe, where a market is developing. It is not a rigged market—examples of which are well known to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover—but a single market. We support a developing market which brings closer together the people of Europe and which brings the Community together as a living and expanding entity.
I shall end where I began by saying that the Labour party is committed to the enlargement of the Community, not just in nominal terms but in real terms. The Scandinavian countries want to be part of the Community, notwithstanding the remarks about Norway made yesterday by the hon. Member for Southend, East. The hon. Gentleman commented earlier on the cohesion fund. When the Scandinavian countries join the Community of ours, they will be net contributors. They will make a real contribution to both the political and social context. That was shown by the speech made by the Swedish Prime Minister at the Tory party conference.
The Minister let slip a phrase which is more significant than even he realises. He talked about a new Europe. The Labour party has argued in this House throughout the Maastricht debate and in our entire approach to Europe for a new Europe. The new European economic area—the merging of Community interests with those of the EFTA states and bringing in the eastern European states—is looking towards that new Europe. That is why I commend the Bill to the House and why we will support the Government.

Mr. John Biffen: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). Most of it was devoted to an almost Jenkinsite view of the Community and the virtues of its centralising destiny. Towards the end, to show that he was not wholly left behind by events, he talked about the virtues of enlargement. The hon. Gentleman will have an exciting learning curve, aided by his hon. Friends in the Chamber, if he holds these responsibilities when the Labour party has chosen its Front-Bench team. I wish him well. I prefer to oppose a communautaire Labour Front Bench than a revisionist Labour Front Bench.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will convey to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board

of Trade our regret that he could not be with us to move the Second Reading. This is a tremendously important Bill, and it would have given him the chance to put to the House his views on the Community, which perforce he has not been able to do over recent months, for reasons that we all understand. Each and every one of us will be most anxious to see him back at the heart of this debate.

Mr. Skinner: Not closing pits.

Mr. Biffen: It will be a diversion from other activities.
I welcome the Bill, in the sense that it seeks a closer association of this country with the EFTA members that are designated as prospective members of this arrangement. I welcome it because, broadly speaking, those countries are at the edge rather than the heart of Europe. Because they are on the edge of Europe, they will have certain cultural, geographical and economic interests that are more closely aligned to ours than those of many existing members.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: indicated assent.

Mr. Biffen: That is a casual observation, but I am glad to have the confirmation of the Liberal Democrats. That is the type of common sense which occasionally escapes during debates such as this. We invent for ourselves wonderful trade prospects. As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, on the whole, the track record of those who have been forecasting economic joy at every stage of our European relationship is not entirely compelling. Therefore, I am basing my case upon other considerations.
There is one point that the House must consider very carefully. There is, as it were, a seamless robe about European Community developments. Just as the original Rome membership led to the Single European Act, and that in turn led to all the arguments about a single currency, what we are seeing here is a staging operation whereby a number of countries, formerly within EFTA, are expected to be incorporated into the European Community.
That development is welcomed by the Government, because it is central to their policy, and it is also welcomed by those on the Opposition Front Bench, and especially by me. I cheerfully endorse the prospect of a wider Europe, because I believe, among other things, that within that widening there will have to be a recognition of the great diversity of Europe and an acceptance that one cannot have, the centralisation which has been fashionable in recent years.
What interests me about the proposals is that, at this stage in the development of the European economic area, which is in fact to do with the consequences of the Single European Act, no significant attempt is being made to loosen the relationships under the Single European Act. The full rigours of the Act will be applied. Is this to be the Community of the future?
As I see it, there is a conflict between the desire to go beyond mere free trade to something more positive contained in the Single European Act—I respect that, and it has, I think, been widely accepted throughout the European Community—but one consequence was not foreseen: the enormous strengthening of the Commission's powers as it sought uniformity on the most massive scale. The reaction against that can be seen in the importance that the Government now attribute to subsidiarity.
I believe that subsidiarity is a means of trying to check and reverse the Commission's growing power under the Single European Act. It is a great challenge, which I welcome—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) will have the opportunity to make his own speech, which I am sure will be less generous than mine. I am seeking the greatest possible agreement with the members of the Front Bench.
If our objective is to loosen the arrangements under the Single European Act, let it be an explicit objective. If no attempt has been made to loosen the circumstances in which the Single European Act will be applied in the European economic area, let us understand why. Let us understand that it was purely a temporary measure required of us by the exigencies of the negotiations, but that the objective of the wider Europe, including the EFTA members, is to ensure a loosening of arrangements under the Single European Act, arid especially to use the powers of subsidiarity to limit the authority of the Commission.
This point is not a passing debating point: it is crucial to our relations with our prospective partners in the north, and will also be valid when considering our relationships with the Czech lands, Hungary, Poland and possibly Slovakia. There will not be the homogeneity that exists between the economies of the EFTA countries. The situation is more complex and varied, so the changes for which I plead will be absolutely crucial in the relationships to be developed with prospective partners in the east.
This issue is at the heart of the expansion of Community membership, which is crucial to Government and Opposition policy. It cannot be left as a good-natured avowal or rhetoric to buy off the House, at Question Time or at any other time. It must be clearly spelt out as an integral part of Government policy, to be pursued in the renegotiation of Maastricht and the deals that are expected to be done in 1996.
That is the only point I want to make; it is a headline point and not a detailed point about the legislation, but my experience of EC legislation is that one must take each stage very carefully and ensure that the Government make it clear where they expect the next development to take place. That was not the case with the Single European Act, which was never sold on the basis that it would lead to economic and monetary union. However, I travelled, as ever, hopefully.
Recently, under the rubric "Raise your eyes, there is a land beyond", my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister contributed to The Economist, volume 328, serial No. 7830, pages 23–27. That is a rather prosaic introduction, so I shall summarise the article. It was the "Brixton Manifesto" on the great issues of the European Community. It makes encouraging reading for me. I shall not detain the House much longer but, in the context of tonight's debate, I shall read out three quick quotations.
My right hon. Friend wrote:
I believe it is time to look afresh at the community and consider the way ahead. Time to put away the old slogans, dreams and prejudices. All over Europe, what are people worying about? Not to reduce the number of currencies, but to increase the number of jobs.
The following quotation could be specific to this debate. He wrote:
I believe it is that centralising vision that alarms so many voters in the applicant countries of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Austria.
He went on:
Community leaders should recognise that danger

of centralism
 and work to avoid it; not imply—as they sometimes do—that these EFTA (European Free Trade Area) countries are lucky to be able to apply. The Community is not Europe. A true European Community needs the EFTA countries and others.
That is almost illegitimacy made an art form.
I am delighted to believe that, after the passage of this legislation, the prosecution of policy will be predicated on the overwhelming requirement to ensure that the implications of the Single European Act are not carried to such an extreme that they sustain the present unacceptable authority of the Commission.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Before I comment on the distinguished contribution of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), whom I think of as the right hon. Member for Ludlow, may I say that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and colleagues will know that it is my habit to attend these debates as often as I can to listen to the speeches. If I have to depart because of a long-standing and vital engagement, I hope to return as soon as possible, but if I do not do so before the following speaker has concluded, I hope that the hon. Member, whoever it is, the House and those who wind up will understand.
I refer to the speech of polity that we have just heard. The right hon. Gentleman does not favour the treaty, but he is like those people who favour it while hoping for a change of direction. The Brixton manifesto, which is well named, is also of that persuasion, as are many of my Front Bench colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman put his finger on the central issue—the Commission's power, the demands of the single market and the modification of subsidiarity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) is a little optimistic: not only does the Commission remain the sole fount of legislation in its raw state, but the single market commands and determines almost all commercial, quantitative, monetary or legal obligations. Of course, the famed and over-publicised principle of subsidiarity does not apply where the Community's competence has vires, as it has over the single market. Therefore, all the hopes and flourishes of the Brixton manifesto and of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and his Front-Bench colleagues are, alas, bound to end in disappointment.
The demands of a market—I shall return to that theme later in connection with Scandinavia and the other EFTA countries—involve more than simply freedom. There may be freedom for some; we have heard the Minister talking about the four freedoms, about movement of capital and so on. But rules and legislation are required, and the more a level playing field is demanded, and the more we say that there should be no interference with competition by state or Community subsidy or law, the more authority becomes necessary, and the more complex it becomes. Over the wider area that the market covers, with its different geographical conditions—in this case, in the northern parts of Europe—more and more authority is required; more courts and more interpretation are needed.
A great deal more is being required of the EFTA countries, especially Finland, Sweden and Norway, than has been popularly understood in this country. The "treaty of Oporto"—that is what it ought to be called—has not been mentioned so far. It was signed on 2 May 1992, and


requires the single market, in all its authoritarianism, to be imposed lock, stock and Commission on all the members of the EEA.
The applicant or semi-applicant states have had to take almost all the legislation on board. I want to find out about the exceptions later, because we should know what they are. The applicants have had to take on, holus bolus, the whole of the famed single market that came into operation on 1 January. Moreover, they are to have only a consultative role concerning any amendments thereto.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: That is up to them.

Mr. Spearing: It may be up to them to a certain extent, but—I shall now put the argument that I intended to put later—is not what is happening virtually force majeure? If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were sitting in the Riksdag in Sweden or in Norway in the—

Mr. Bruce: Storting.

Mr. Spearing: Yes, the Storting. The Danes, too, were involved in something similar recently. The economic and social pressures, and the talk of the risks if those countries do not join, do not necessarily lead to willing acceptance. Countries can accept adherence for all sorts of reasons other than absolute willingness. The relative position of those states, and the relative size of their economies and populations, form at least an element. In the Storting, there was a relatively small majority in favour of entry.
Will the Minister who winds up the debate tell us about the exceptions to the authoritarian structural market, about which we are learning more and more? The northern parts of Europe, especially the three states that I have mentioned, are distinctive in climate, in peoples and in social development. Their landscape is one of fjords, fields, forests and farms, and their communities depend greatly on that base.
Norway also depends greatly on the life of the North sea—the marine life, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has illustrated so well by his questions. Of course, we all know that the European policies on agriculture and fisheries have been such an outstanding success that we want other people to join in. The communities that live nearest to the earth, the forests and the sea are the most vulnerable.
State aids are prohibited in principle in any part of the single market. They can exist only with permission, and that will be given only if the Commission does not think that they will distort the market. But the Commissioners' job is to protect the treaties, and the treaties require the single market; it is the golden calf of the whole outfit.
A description of the EEA agreement issued by the European Free Trade Association in February 1992 says the following about state aid:
The EFTA countries will have to provide information about existing and proposed aid schemes to the EFTA Surveillance Authority, which may order them to be altered or abolished. New aid schemes may not be implemented without the approval of the Surveillance Authority.
Anyone who has travelled in those countries will know how important a part state aids—that is an ugly phrase; my hon. Friends and I might use the expression "community support"—play in the life of their communities. Indeed,

many Scandinavian countries have the advantage of not having experienced a medieval period dominated by great landowners, as we did in this country.
In harsh conditions, the whole of life is based on presumptions of co-operation and commonality, and on a close relationship with the environment of field and fjord. That attitude is shared by many of the Scots communities. No wonder they, too, feel the problems that arise. The landscapes and the way of life in many parts of Scotland are not dissimilar from those in Scandinavia, which is not surprising, because the people come from common Viking ancestors.
Will most of those communal and state aids now be under threat? I suggest that, in principle, they will. I hope that the Minister he will tell us of any derogations, either permanent or transitional, written into the treaty of Oporto that modify the otherwise harsh requirements of the single authoritarian market as they affect the fundamental ways of life of our neighbours, especially in Scandinavia.
No mention has yet been made of Iceland, but I believe that that is one of the six territories. I bracket Iceland with Scandinavia and, of course, with landlocked Austria. Switzerland, another landlocked country, will not be involved. What country could be more central in financial and geographical terms to the continent of western Europe than Switzerland? Yet the Swiss have examined the matter closely and said, "No, we can do better on our own."
What about VAT? There is to be harmonisation, as we all know, because it is already causing problems. The countries in question, rightly and for their own reasons, have relatively high VAT, but they also have high standards of social support. We all, especially the Opposition, know that their people—perhaps not gladly, but assuredly—put up with high turnover taxes, but that in return they receive a high social wage. That fact is built into the community life of those countries, as I have explained. What will happen if there is freedom of movement of labour?
I suspect that even now some of the people of the north-east, perhaps from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), our Front-Bench spokesman, and some of the people from Scotland, possibly even from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, work in the Norwegian offshore oil industry.

Dr. Godman: That is the problem; they do not.

Mr. Spearing: But some people from the north-east do.

Dr. Godman: I must point out to my hon. Friend that the Norwegian authorities make every effort to ensure that it is extremely difficult for a United Kingdom national to obtain employment in the Norwegian oil and gas industry.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he gives an example that illustrates my point well. I can well understand why the Norwegians act in that way, just as I would understand, if there was an independent Scotland, that the Scots would not be too keen on Norwegians coming in and doing the same thing.
There is some social coherence in Bergen, in Stavanger, in Trondheim or wherever. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has said, there is a feeling that it should be Norwegians first. Once the treaty is in force, will what my hon. Friend has told me no longer apply? I suspect that that may be the case.
That may be to the advantage of his constituents, of mine or of those of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, but what will people say in a coherent Norwegian society which is predicated on the status quo? What will happen? I put that as a question. What would happen the other way round? What about the different social support systems in that part of the world and here?

Mr. Oliver Heald: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Norway and the other EFTA countries should be allowed to enter the European economic area while maintaining state aid and trade barriers? They would then be able to retain jobs in their countries at the expense of Britain and other member countries by hiding behind trade barriers, which we do not have. Would that not be bad for jobs?

Mr. Spearing: I was expressing a point of view. I was trying to point out some of the problems that may arise. There may be problems and dilemmas that have not yet been sufficiently addressed. Conservative Members, and especially the Minister, have assumed that, the bigger and wider the market, the fewer barriers—which some people might call protection—there would be. Harold Wilson spoke of one man's protection being another man's freedom. It is assumed that taking down all the protections and having a giant economic machine will give everybody more universal benefits. That is the macro-assumption behind the whole of the single market.

Mr. Bell: indicated assent.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend nods.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: That is the idea.

Mr. Spearing: Of course. However, there may be unexpected or predictable side effects as I have just explained, especially when centuries of tradition and centuries of assumption have been built up by communities which have been in place for a long time.
Another question is the relationship between the Baltic states—Sweden and Finland—with the mainland Baltic states on the other side of that sea. My understanding of history and of trade is that there was a great deal of commonality among the Baltic states, including those in eastern Europe, in trade, in culture and in contact. There are trade arrangements and movement arrangements. How will that mesh with the demands of the treaty of Oporto? Those questions should be asked at this stage and should be answered.
I now come to the all-important question about the political and legal relationships between the EEA and the EC in its central market function. I intervened in the Minister's speech a little earlier on that. Three new institutions will act as couplings between the six EEA countries jointly and the rest of the EC. There will be a Council of Ministers of the EEA, which I suspect will act in a double capacity. It will meet the Community by means of meeting some people from the Commission.
Oh yes, I have no doubt that, as the Minister said, there will be other connections as well. However, it will be the Commission with which the Council of Ministers will tie in primarily, and I believe that that is written into the treaty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough has already addressed the question of decision-making. Who will decide what the treaty means? I presume that it will not

be the International Court of Justice under the Vienna convention, although the treaty is probably registered as an international treaty, because the treaty says that we shall have to set up special machinery. The rules of the single market are made by the European Court in Luxembourg. The court will be the interpreter of the rules of the single market when it is enlarged.
Of course, the EFTA countries do not have political control because they have not signed any of the EC treaties, either the treaty of Rome or its successors. They do not intend to sign those yet, although they may consider doing so later. So we have to set up the surveillance body, which has pretty big powers. I quoted the details of one of its powers in respect of state aid. The surveillance body will give opinions, it will police the treaty and it will see how the treaty works out.
There will then be another court between the two groups of countries. The EEA treaty court will, in the end, have to accept what the court in Luxembourg says are the terms of the single market. The connections will be tenuous at a political level, but very strong at a legal level.

Dr. Godman: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the European Court of Justice will become a supreme court over the whole membership of the EEA, and that the EEA court will seek opinions from the European Court of Justice?

Mr. Spearing: I think that we need confirmation of that point from the Minister. I have expressed my understanding of what will happen, either de jure or de facto. Bearing in mind the economic strength of the partnerships concerned, if it is not de jure, it may well be de facto.
The whole of the single market and its institutions form, by definition, an authoritarian organisation, as they must do if they are to fulfil the purposes of the treaties. The provisions will be extended into a geographical and social area where they are least applicable. Those who will be subject to them will find all the disadvantages that we have found in this country. I include even those who welcomed membership; I am not talking about those who may not have done.
We can learn something about the real nature of the European Economic Community and about union by having a look at the effects of the treaties on our northern neighbours in western Europe.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: One feels nostalgic about having another of these debates and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). If there is one criticism to be levelled at the Euro-realists, who opposed the Maastricht treaty, which I take seriously, it is that we must not live too much in despair. There is too much lamenting the Community as it is and not enough travelling in hope for the future.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) showed an attitude that I shall attempt to emulate. I have great admiration for my right hon. Friend, who has given me much advice since I entered the House. I may have been referred to as a man without a father, but my right hon. Friend has been to me a father figure.
The agreement is an important step towards the objective enunciated by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which he described as variable geometry. We


have created in the Maastricht treaty, if the opt-outs actually work, a Community of at least two tiers. By this agreement to create the European economic area, the treaty of Oporto, we are creating a three-tier, three-speed Community, which is surely a step in the direction of the Government's stated policy.
However, we must ensure that the agreement respects the individual sovereignty of the EFTA states. I share the endorsement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North of the article in The Economist by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in which he said that the nation state is here to stay. That is an immutable fact which the architects of the European Community have tended to ignore. The Government must be the champion of the nascent members of the EEA. We must stand by their individuality and their limited exemptions from the acquis communautaire of the Community because therein lies the danger.
I want to analyse the relationship between the legal entity of the EFTA states and the Community and to shed light on the comments of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Protocol 35, the "Sole Article" states:
For cases of possible conflicts between implemented EEA rules and other statutory provisions, the EFTA States undertake to introduce, if necessary, a statutory provision to the effect that EEA rules prevail in these cases.
Analogous to the treaty of Rome in respect of the EC member states, here is the supremacy of the Oporto treaty over the law of the EFTA member states.
Articles 105 and 106 deal with the homogeneity of interpretations in respect of the relationship between the EEA Court and the European Court of Justice. The EEA Joint Committee is assigned the task of constant review of the case law of the ECJ and the EFTA court to keep interpretation of the EEA consistent. When the interpretations differ the Joint Committee may settle the question or, where the question is one of interpretation of an EC provision, the Joint Committee may ask the ECJ for a definitive ruling.
In other words, the ECJ is the final arbiter of interpretation of EC provisions and may overrule the EFTA Court interpretations of EC rules. However, it would appear that if the disagreement is not over an EC rule, but over the interpretation of an EEA agreement, the EEA Joint Committee must make the decision about interpretation. Any such decisions made by the EEA Joint Committee will apply throughout the EEA, but will not affect the case law of the ECJ in relation to protocol 48.
The importance of that is that it appears that by acceding to the EEA agreement the EFTA countries are acceding to the entire acquis communautaire of the treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act. Their only exemptions are those specifically granted to them and it is instructive to glance at the treaty of Oporto because its prose and structure have a deadly ring of familiarity, as they are the same as those in the treaty of Rome.
We must not forget that it is the acquis communautaire, the structure of the Community, which in the words of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been
invading the nooks and crannies of our daily lives".
Unless we succeed in making the EEA agreement change the nature of the European Community as we know and

love it today, the enlargement of the Community that we are seeking will not achieve our hoped for objective of decentralising the Community.
I want to refer briefly to free movement. While I understand that this issue is not covered by the portfolio of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology who is currently on the Front Bench, perhaps he can tell me what effect the free movement provisions in the EEA agreement will have on our potential dispute with the European Court in respect of the free movement of people within the Community at the moment. Do the Government still stand by our right to check the passport of every person entering and leaving the United Kingdom to check that non-EC nationals are not entering the country illegally?
I want now to refer briefly to the expense of the cohesion fund. If the new cohesion fund which is to be set up under the EEA is to be part of our policy of enlarging the Community, there is here surely another element of subsidy and intervention which will not help our cause in Europe.
There are no opt-outs for the EFTA countries from the social provisions of the Single European Act. Therefore, in respect of our disputes with the Community on social affairs, we might find ourselves not just one against 11, but one against 13, 15 or however many EFTA countries join.
The only opt-outs relate to fisheries and agricultural policies. In that respect, instead of an improvement in many EEA countries, they will be more heavily subsidised and more protected in agriculture than currently in the European Community. Again, that is hardly progress towards reforming agricultural policy in the direction that we want.
Nevertheless, it is a step towards enlargement. We must hope that the EFTA countries do not become so appalled by the intrusive nature and expense of the regulation and imposition of the acquis communautaire that they are driven away from membership of the European Community and so cannot join to help us decentralise.
As the Bill is clearly a step in the direction of enlargement and as, by the very nature of nation states, there is a wish to retain sovereignty in the long term, and because I have faith in the overall sense of the European people, I welcome the Bill. I believe that it will help us to move towards our cause of decentralisation, if only because the friction created between member states by the misplaced ambitions of the bureaucrats who attempt to impose their uniformity over the continent is bound to fail. I therefore strongly support the Bill.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I welcome the Bill. It is interesting to put down a marker by stating that, before we joined the European Community, we were a member of EFTA. It is appropriate to recognise that the gulf which was created by the exit of three members is now being substantially, if not totally, bridged by the creation of the European economic area. Indeed, it may be substantially further bridged if the applications of the four EFTA members go forward for full membership. This is the right way to proceed.
The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) might be surprised to learn that I agree that one of the welcome points is that the proposal strengthens the


northern contribution of the European Community in European thinking and it introduces different strands of thought with which we should be glad to join forces.
Speaking as a Member who represents a Scottish constituency, I have to say that we have established links with Scandinavian countries. However, there are also barriers which the Bill will begin to erode. In that context, the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) identified an area which is potentially of very important and practical benefit to my constituents who work in the Norwegian sector of the North sea, and others who would like to but who have found themselves excluded. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who has left the Chamber, seems to be more concerned about the interests of the Norwegians than about the interests of the Scots and the British. That is taking nobility and altruism just a little far.
In terms of direct contributions to the budget, the EFTA countries will be net contributors to the tune of 145 million ecu per annum. While some may believe that those countries will add to our burden by joining, in reality they will help to lower our burden. However, we must then consider what motivates those countries.
One motivation is that membership provides access to, or an opportunity to bid for, common research funding. The main reason why those countries wish to join is that membership is likely to lead to an enlargement of their trade potential and an increase in their gross national product. That will help to fund their large social programmes—it is the net benefit that they hope to achieve.
This is a two-way process, of course. It gives us access to these countries' markets, and them access to ours. According to an independent analysis, published and placed in the Library, the net effect on the European Community is minimal. But the benefit likely to accrue to the EFTA countries could be considerable. It is estimated that their output in tradeable goods could increase by 2·9 per cent. I accept that these forecasts are just estimates, and such benefits do not always materialise, but in the long term there is no doubt that the European Community has led to a net increase of economic output which it is unlikely would have been achieved if the member states had remained independent, dealing without the benefits of co-operation.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman seems, so knowledgable about all these things, will he help Members who do not know as much as he does by giving us some broad examples of what the EFTA countries, which freely trade now, will get from the agreement? Will a huge new area of trade be opened up to them?

Mr. Bruce: It is not a matter of tariff barriers, which do not exist even now. It is the non-tariff barriers that should be removed. One should not underestimate the extent to which they can be a restraint on trade—I am talking about technical specifications and internal agreements. This will not happen overnight; it will happen because of the collision of two market systems. I am in no better position to make predictions than any other independent assessor, but there is plenty of evidence for what I say. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T.

Taylor), representing a party that claims to believe in free markets, does not accept that benefits will flow from free trade and from exposure to best practice in other markets.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Is not the whole purpose of these countries joining the very opposite of what the hon. Gentleman is saying? It is not that they are going to gain any trade—that trade already takes place. Their fear is that if they do not join they will thereafter be excluded from markets with which they have already been trading. That is one of the great problems. After all, some of these nations have much higher social costs than some of the EC nations.

Mr. Bruce: I reject that argument. I do not believe it, any more than I ever believed that this country joined the EC for fear of being excluded. That was certainly not why I campaigned to stay in the Community when others wanted us to stay out of it. I did so because I firmly believed that our economic and political destiny lay in open frontiers and markets, and in the greater freedom to be had from political, economic and cultural association. I firmly believe in the positive aspirations of most of the EFTA countries. They want to be part of such an association, to ensure that the Community builds on it and develops the sort of political and economic framework of which they want to be a part—not because they fear exclusion, but because they positively want to participate.
I readily concede that the equilibrium is not satisfactory, however. This arrangement can only be transitional—a halfway house. These countries are contributing to a budget for assistance which will not benefit their own populations. They are excluding themselves from the common agricultural and common fisheries policies. They are not full members of the Community.
More to the point, although the countries in question will have the right to negotiate and influence decision making in the EC as it affects the EEA, they will not have voting rights. That is likely to lead in time to the recognition that being full members is better than being associate members, so that they can play their full part in the process.
I wholly accept the argument that we need to reform the structures of the Community to make it less bureaucratic, more open and more democratic. The countries of EFTA have a great contribution to make to improving the democratic structures of the EC.

Dr. Godman: Is the hon. Gentleman of the view that Norway will proceed smoothly from what he calls a halfway house to full membership of the EC? If he is, may I point out to him that many people living in northern Norwegian fishing communities feel growing concern about the implications of full membership, and especially about adopting the common fisheries policy?

Mr. Bruce: My honest answer is—the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear it—that it will not be a smooth, easy transition. Indeed, Norway's last attempt to join the Community did not end in success. I used to work for a Norwegian company. I have visited the country and I have many friends there, and I am well aware of the tensions in Norway and of its desire to preserve its distinctive way of life. Norway has the advantage of large oil and gas reserves and a small population. That gives it a degree of freedom


that it might not otherwise have. I suspect that the Norwegians' attitude might have been slightly different had they not discovered those reserves.
The referendum in Switzerland went dead against the wishes of the Government there. I agree with some of the comments made by Tory Eurosceptics about that. We cannot simply proceed at breakneck speed with these changes without carrying the people with us. Doing so in the past has been a mistake. A referendum is only a contribution, not a definitive answer. There still have to be leadership, vision and decisions, not all of which can be determined by referendums. I do not deny that they can play a part, but they do not always solve the problems.
The referendum in Switzerland created a vacuum and no one knows the way forward now. The Swiss Government have said, "The people have decided on something with which we do not agree and which we do not think is in their national interests—and for which we have no alternative policy." The people have rejected their Government's policy, but no one has any idea what to do next. That is democracy, but it does not solve the problems. Indeed, it can add to them, and then politicians have to deal with them.
Whether the economic benefits materialise or not, this is not merely an economic enterprise. There are economic benefits, and co-operation certainly helps to improve the quality of life, the scale of innovation and the degree of human advance. But this is also a political venture. Although it may move in lurches and require reassessment from time to time, the process should not be derailed just because we face the difficulties of recession, of German reunification—we are all paying the price for that—and of enlarging the Community.
My party and I do not see the Community just as a club for the rich which should exclude the aspiring democratic nations of eastern Europe. Nor are we in favour of those who want to use the disparity in Europe as an excuse for making no progress or trying to turn the clock back. We must strive to find ways of narrowing the gaps and of creating diversity in the Community so that it can accommodate these new democratic nations.

Mr. Jenkin: Is that why the hon. Gentleman's party dropped the word "federal" at its conference last month?

Mr. Bruce: We did not. I have campaigned for a federal United Kingdom, never mind a federal Europe, for a long time. Extraordinarily enough, some Members seem to think that Britain is a paragon of democracy, sensitivity and political consultation—unlike those wicked European bureaucratic, dictatorial and dogmatic countries—but I travel widely in those countries, so I know that there is a great deal more democracy in some member states than there is in this country, especially in terms of how the practical decisions that affect people's daily lives are made. We have a lot to learn. Such practical decision making is a feature of the Scandinavian countries, which are the Bill's prime concern. That is one reason why I welcome their closer involvement in the Community.
The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) spoke about what he called the Brixton manifesto. His extract from the Prime Minister's statement did not amount to a vision. The Prime Minister seems to have severe astigmatism in this area because, while he seems

anxious to move towards greater European cohesion, he is trying to ensure that there is sufficient diversity and resistance to change to enable him to reassure the sceptics in his party that it will not make too much difference.
There must be a full and honest recognition that moving forward and enlarging the Community creates difficulties and challenges. We must accept that there is a need to reduce bureaucracy and improve consultation and democracy, and that the objective is to try to ensure that the Community can accommodate a greater diversity of ideas, peoples and countries at different stages of development. That is good and desirable.
The difference between my party and some of the sceptics is that we genuinely want to move in that direction, whereas they want to use that as an excuse to reverse the process. We support the Bill because it is a move in the right direction and because we hope that it will lead to enlargement of the Community.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that it would be a mistake to regard the EC as a rich man's club. Most of the EC states are bankrupt and covered in unemployment, and Europe's share of world trade is going down and down. Those basic factors should be considered by the Government and the Euro-enthusiasts.
In this EC debate, the House is virtually empty: no one wants to hear and no one wants to listen. No one wants to face the fact that the EC is in an appalling economic mess and that unemployment is getting out of control. Those who still live in daydream land should wake up to the brutal facts about what is happening in western Europe and what has happened as a result of decisions made by the House.
Although we should be trying to make friends in the debate, I am afraid that I disagree with the fundamental principle advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He said that we should be thinking about how to get these nice countries from northern Europe to join so that we can somehow make the Community better. My right hon. Friend gives such wonderful speeches that I usually applaud, but this one seemed to display a kind of selfishness. It was like saying, "We have joined a rotten club which is full of fraudsters and drunks. The way to improve it is to ask four nice people to join, so that somehow this rotten club, which is sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will become better."
We should hope that the poor, wonderful people of Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Finland will not have to subject themselves to the loss of freedom, misery and all the horrendous economic consequences of EC membership. It would be dreadful to say to those countries, "Please come in to try to make things better for us." We should tell them that in their own interests they should stay out. People should wake up to what is happening.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): Perhaps we should not be telling those countries anything. They applied to join the Community under their own terms. Austria applied in 1989, and Finland and many other EFTA countries have applied to join the Community.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister is right, but unfortunately he is taking advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is usually two years out of date. I accept that some countries were enthusiastic to join, but what has happened in the interim? Switzerland has said, "Go and jump." Norway has just had an election, and I wish that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would tell the Minister what happened. There was a massive victory for the parties that said that they wanted nothing to do with the EC. A recent opinion poll in Norway showed that 58 per cent. of its people were totally opposed to getting involved in any way with the EC and that 32 per cent. were in favour. That shows the problem with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The Prime Minister has appealed to us to work together and to be unified, but today the Foreign Office published a document listing what it called Euro-myths and Euro-lunacies. One of the lunacies that it listed was about the average family spending £1,000 a year more on food. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, a wonderful man who knows how to add figures, published a document last week which stated that the average family had to spend £24 a week extra on food. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office says that it is lunacy to say that the figure is £20 a week. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office must start to work with the rest of the Government to achieve the Prime Minister's objective of getting us all working together. That is the context in which we should be examining the Bill.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: My intervention relates to the hon. Gentleman's preceding point. Does he not realise that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been more cunning than he gives it credit for? In getting such an appalling deal for British fishing, and in its usual sycophantic deference to other fishing nations in negotiating the treaty, it has given a marvellous weapon to those people, especially in Norway, who want to keep their country out. It has agreed to give Spanish fishermen in that predatory Spanish fishing fleet a quota of about 30,000 tonnes, which is three times our catch in Norwegian waters. That Spanish fleet has no historic record in that area, but it is getting the quota in return for catches made in our waters and fish marketed in our markets. Can the hon. Gentleman think of anything better calculated to turn the Norwegians against the whole treaty than that piece of Foreign Office incompetence?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I agree. If the Norwegians have any doubts, they should talk to our fishermen. They should ask them, "Where is all this opportunity, and where is the glorious triumph that access to European waters will give us?" They should ask what has happened to the percentage of the fish that are caught by British fishermen, and about their freedom when the European courts decide that Spanish fishermen are somehow British. They should not go to the Foreign Office but should talk to the fishermen and to other people. I believe that that is what they are doing because they are waking up.
The Bill would probably make sense if we expected all the EFTA countries to join the EC next year. We are asking them to abide by about 65 per cent. of the acquis communautaire laws, and to pay piles of cash into the EC. If they were about to join, that would make sense, because it would be a kind of stepping stone to full membership. But, of course, the people in EFTA have woken up. They

have looked at Europe and seen the economic misery from which we are suffering, the bureaucracy, the loss of freedom and the fraud, and they do not want to join at all.
I do not think that any EFTA Government will be able to persuade their Parliament to join. If that is true, is it fair and reasonable for us to go ahead with the treaty? The treaty will impose on those unfortunate countries piles of measures that they will have no part in deciding. For example, the social policy on page 212 has piles of measures attached. Those countries will have to apply them, and they should ask themselves why they should have to do that to have free trade when they have that now. Why should they have to adopt all the education, training and vocation policies on page 211 and all the environment policies on page 210? But they will have to do that. Is it fair and reasonable to say to those countries that they will have to do that to ensure free trade?
What about the cash? The Minister of State gave what I thought was wonderful news when he said that Northern Ireland would get cohesion fund money, but I have been told that it will not get any such money. Now we hear that a second cohesion fund is being set up with EFTA money and that Northern Ireland will get some of it. What advantages will membership confer on the EFTA countries? They will get no more than what they have now, but because we have gone ahead with our single market and all its bureaucracy, we are saying to them. "If you want to keep that, mates, you will have to go ahead." There will be some transitional advantages, such as a little bit on banking and, I am told, something on insurance.
I shall describe to the Minister a test case. As well as being a Member of Parliament I am a major business man and tycoon—the House is probably not aware of that. I happen to be the director of a Swedish company called Ansvar (Temperance) Insurance. It is one of the greatest companies in the world. It is an international company which sells insurance only to total abstainers from alcohol.
How will Ansvar be helped by the Bill? We trade freely in the Republic of Ireland. It is a wonderful country for abstainers from alcohol. We make lots of money. The only country where we have had to close is a place called Germany, which has things called Lander. The Lander make business impossible. They said that our brass plate was the wrong size. They have all sorts of silly rules. We have transferred to a local agency which is working quite well.
Ansvar is a test case. How will that great Swedish company benefit from the Bill? It will be subject to new rules and regulations. We are saying to EFTA countries, "If you want to carry on as you are doing now, you must give us cash and accept masses of laws and rules." It is not a good bargain for them.
My next point is about Euro-scroungers. I am doubtful about going ahead with the Bill following the dramatic speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security at the party conference. I know that few members of the Conservative party appeared to attend the conference. I came to my office during the conference. There seemed to be more Conservative Members in the Norman Shaw building than at the conference. I can understand why. However, if Conservative Members had attended the conference, they would have heard a fantastic speech from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. He said that the Euro-scrounging would stop.
I have seen a wonderful pamphlet around Florence university entitled "Mrs. Thatcher is like a mother to me." It explains how people can come over here and have their holiday paid for by the Government. I do not know how the Secretary of State intends to stop it. As I understand it from the Commission, the only people who can be stopped are those who have been found guilty of murder or manslaughter. The alternative is to change the law so that no one can receive social security payments until he or she has been around for five weeks. That would mean that our own people would starve in consequence.
If the Bill is passed, we shall have more Euro-scrounging. It is not just my talk. It is in black and white. The money resolution and the guidance on money suggest that there will be far more Euro-scrounging. Exactly how much there will be cannot be estimated. A figure of £1 million is suggested for insurance, and social security is only mentioned. I should like to know what the Government will do if there is more Euro-scrounging. I support the Government's position on Euro-scrounging, but they should tell us how they intend to stop it. It would help a great deal if we had some idea how holiday scrounging will be stopped before EFTA-scrounging is added to it.
The next point is a difficult one. Gibraltar is not mentioned in the treaty so one might wonder how we can refer to it. However, sadly the Bill will have a pretty nasty effect on Gibraltar. Gibraltar is a great place. Its people have stood firm by this country. They have tried hard to be part of the European Community. The treaty says on pages 465 and 469 that the banks of Liechtenstein will have access to the United Kingdom market. The sad fact is that Gibraltar's banks will not have such access. The reason is complicated.
The Minister sent me a lovely fax today when he heard that I intended to mention Gibraltar. The Minister recognised that the problem was serious. He said that it should be possible to table an amendment to deal with the problem. I tried hard to do so, but sadly the Clerks told me to get lost and that it could not be done. Gibraltar has suffered a great deal. It is the only part of the EC that cannot send people to the European Parliament. It would not do Gibraltar much good if it could because no one would notice. If the European Parliament closed down tomorrow, only the taxi drivers of Strasbourg would notice.
Gibraltarians do not have free movement in Spain. They are subject to bureaucratic restrictions. Gibraltar is a lovely place. I have been there twice on holiday. It could not be a nicer place. Aeroplanes have to fly miles out of the way to land at Gibraltar airport because the Spaniards will not allow them to fly through Spanish air space. It is the only airport in Europe which is not protected by some organisation. The Spanish Government compromised by saying that if the airport put up a Spanish as well as a British flag, everything would be well. However, the poor old Gibraltarians, understandably, did not want to do that.
In a recent referendum the Gibraltarians decided by more than 12,000 votes to 45 that they wanted to remain linked to Britain. The Government simply must do something about banking before the Bill is passed. The Bill will make matters an awful lot worse. In his fax, the Minister set out how the Gibraltarians had done everything

that the Government had asked them to do. They changed their laws exactly in accordance with Euro-rules. They went out of their way. However, sadly, it seems that because of the silly Spaniards, everything that the Government tried to do was blocked. At one point, the Government said that the problem could be solved; then they said that it could not.
The Bill will damage EFTA countries and add to their expense and bureaucracy. Everyone seems to want to do it. But please can we do something for Gibraltar? Gibraltarians are United Kingdom nationals for EC purposes. The provisions of article 227(4) of the treaty make it clear that they should have the same rights as everyone else. They do not.
Is it sensible that we should pass a Bill that imposes extra bureaucratic controls and expenses on free countries without achieving a great deal for them? Could the Government clarify what they intend to do about Euro-scroungers before we create more of them? Could we do something for Gibraltar? We sometimes laugh at these matters. The Gibraltarians are good, decent, respectable people. They wave the Union Jack. They feel British. They are saying, "Who will speak for us?" They cannot speak for themselves. They do not have a representative on the Council of Ministers. Only the British Government can speak for them and protect them.
It is easy for the Foreign Office to forget Gibraltar when it is doing dirty deals in the EC and wants Spanish votes. We have an obligation to protect Gibraltar. No one else can do it. The Government must go out of their way to sort out the problems of the airport and of banking. Gibraltar does not want privileges. It does not want stupid grants and loans. It merely wants the same freedom as other parts of the EC. It wants its banks to have the freedom to operate in the same way as the banks of Liechtenstein. That seems fair and reasonable.
I know that the Minister is a decent fellow. He is a fair, reasonable and patriotic person. It is a joy to have him here instead of some of the funny people from the Foreign Office team who are now happily no longer part of the Government. It is also a joy to have a nice Whip on the Bench instead of the fat thugs who use obscenities. So we have a nice Minister, a nice Whip, a nice Parliamentary Private Secretary and a happy atmosphere. Therefore, let us try to do a good job for Gibraltar, for freedom and for Britain. Let us hope that the good people of the EFTA countries will know that it is in their interest not to get involved in the nonsense of the EC, even though my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North has tried to tempt them in. They should look at what we have suffered and what the French have suffered. They should keep their liberty and they should not let themselves down.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: It is always a pleasure to listen to the nice Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) make a characteristically nice speech.
I begin by asking the Minister what appears to be a parochial question. Is he aware that at present the Norwegian state shipbuilding subsidy is about 14 per cent.? Is it likely to be reduced to the level of the subsidy given by the European Community seventh directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund? The gap between the


two subsidies places the few British shipyards that are still in existence at a distinct disadvantage when pursuing orders from Norwegian shipowners.
I would like to hear the Minister's response to that question. Will the Norwegian shipbuilding intervention subsidy be reduced to the European subsidies of 9 per cent. and 4 per cent. respectively, depending on the size of the contract?
I would like to respond to a couple of points made by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). First, I echo his welcome to the countries which may well obtain membership of the EC, and especially the Scandinavian countries. I shall respond to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the concept of subsidiarity in a moment or two.
I have a great deal of respect and affection for the Scandinavian people. I first came across the people of Norway when I was an 11-year-old schoolboy, and 'was foolish enough to stow away on board a trawler that fished off northern Norway for three weeks. At the time, I bitterly regretted the youthful decision, but it brought me into contact for the first time with the fishing communities of northern Norway. I can well understand why they have such deep reservations concerning Norway's membership of the European Community. The hon. Member for Southend, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) referred to those concerns earlier. The fishing communities are deeply worried about what will happen to the stocks upon which they are so dependent once the Spanish and others get in among them. I can well understand those concerns.
I bitterly regret the decision by the Norwegian Government to encourage the resumption of whaling, and that explains my reasoned amendment, which was not accepted, about the abolition of whaling. I would say to the fine people of Norway that, if their country becomes a member of the EC, they will have to accept the abolition of whaling.
That point was made recently by the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who was commenting on the EC convention on international trade in endangered species. He said:
the cumulative effect of the agreements is a whaling ban in Community waters. There is no other way to interpret them. When Norway comes into the Community, it seems to me inconceivable that the Community would wish to relax that ban. Therefore, Norway has just applied to join an organisation that bans whaling.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the predatory activities of the massive Spanish fleet, which must be now the biggest fishing fleet in the EC and which operates in a largely uncontrolled fashion, are transferred to Norwegian waters, it will be to the discredit of all European fishing nations? The consequences would fall on British fishermen. Humberside fishermen, for instance, historically have always fished in Norwegian waters. Does my hon. Friend also agree that the reactions, exclusions and difficulties will fall on us rather than on the Spanish fishermen, and that that will create a state of friction between our fishermen and the Norwegians?

Dr. Godman: I have every sympathy for what my hon. Friend says. We tend to forget that fishing, in addition to being a hunting activity, is in every sense an economic activity. Communities such as the one represented so ably by my hon. Friend can suffer because of such agreements.
I do not wish to sound chauvinistic, but the Spanish fishing interests can behave appallingly badly with regard to the regulation and surveillance of fishing activities. In Vigo, for example, there is a type of insurance club which takes contributions from the owners and the skippers of vessels. The club assists with the payment of fines when, as is inevitable, one of the skippers is caught fishing illegally. No matter what the Minister may say about the evening-out of differences between nations, there are groups which will continue to work fiddles.
My hon. Friend is also correct when he talks about our historic tradition of fishing in Norwegian waters, while the Spanish have little or no history of fishing those waters. They, not British fishermen, are the beneficiaries of protocol 9 in the agreement.
I will respond in passing to a comment by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North concerning subsidiarity. I would love to see a democratic interpretation of article 3(b) of the Maastricht treaty after November 1, which would devolve power, not only away from Brussels, but from London to Edinburgh and down to regional and local government. I believe that I am right in saying that after November 1, article 3(b) will become, in every sense of the word, justiciable. The European Court of Justice will, sooner or later, offer its opinion or a series of opinions on the application of that article among member states.
I would like to suggest to the Minister that the Bill be referred to a Special Standing Committee under Standing Order No. 91. So many implications for our constituents are contained in the Bill that it would be worth while to allow a Special Standing Committee to take evidence over four sittings from Foreign Office and other Ministers. They could deal with some of the concerns that have been voiced in tonight's debate.
It is fair to say that the House has not scrutinised the agreement in a formal or rigorous way. The Select Committee on European Community Legislation was prevented from carrying out that task by its terms of reference. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has not reported to the House on the agreement, so this is literally the first examination of the agreement that has taken place.

Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point in view of what the Prime Minister said on the importance of scrutiny in an article in The Economist on 25 September. The article, I was glad to note, effectively paid tribute to the Maastricht debate.
The Select Committee on Trade and Industry should be studying the agreement. I made some suggestions that the Committee might try to have a full look at the agreement in relation to the single market. Suddenly, however, we had the embarrassment of the pit closure fiasco, a result of which was that the Committee was not able to give the time that the subject required.
Let us hope that the Committee can have another look at the implications of the single market in the light of the Oporto agreement. I am certain that there are matters in the agreement which no hon. Member will have had an opportunity to look at in the depth that is required. The Select Committee should have a good look at the agreement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees.

Dr. Godman: I do indeed. I think that it would be very useful if that Select Committee examined the agreement in some detail. I am not for one moment suggesting that the


proceedings of a Special Standing Committee would be an adequate substitute for the kind of rigorous analysis that could be brought to bear on such a document by a Select Committee and its specialist advisers, not least because—I think that I am right in saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a Special Standing Committee can have only four morning sittings. The members of such a Committee—I hasten to point out to the Whip on the Opposition Front Bench that I am not volunteering my services—could cross-examine the Law Officers on the relationship between the European Economic Area Court and the European Court of Justice.
The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) quoted articles 108 and 109 of the agreement, which to some extent refer to that relationship between the two courts. I should have thought that, if a person or a company is deeply unhappy about a judgment reached by the European Economic Area Court, he or it should have the right to appeal that decision and seek an opinion from the European Court of Justice as a supreme court. The Special Standing Committee procedure would allow for questions of that nature to be answered by Law Officers.
I can envisage a potentially turbulent relationship developing between the two courts. I think that I am also right in saying that, after 1 November, an individual will have the right under the Maastricht treaty to take his or her Government to court if he or she believes that they have failed to protect his or her interests vis-a-vis EC legislation. An individual may be able to argue such a case in terms of the failure of the EEA court to protect such interests.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was absolutely right about the need to iron out some of the existing discrepancies in the offshore oil and gas industries. The hon. Gentleman may well have a few constituents working in the Norwegian sector, but it will be only a few, because it is exceedingly difficult for United Kingdom nationals to find work in that sector. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that, under the agreement, such discrimination will be illegal.
As regards protocol 9, what protection is afforded to the Scottish salmon industry in respect of the subsidies given to the Norwegian industry? Not so very long ago, we had the terrible experience of the Norwegians dumping farmed salmon on the market in European Community countries. The European Commission took defensive measures to protect those working in the Scottish salmon industry. Presumably, under protocol 9, the Norwegians will not have to face such defensive mechanisms. These are important matters to the people working in that industry, many of whom live in remote communities where there are no alternative employment opportunities. I ask the Minister to assure me that, in matters of employment and the use of vessels, no discrimination will be exercised against United Kingdom nationals.
Following what I said in response to the speech by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, I am fairly relaxed about our bringing the Scandinavian countries into the relationship. I think that the European Community will benefit from their involvement. As the House of Commons research paper suggests, the agreement is very much in the Scandinavian countries' interests, being a staging post on the road to full membership of the Community. It may well be, however, that for the foreseeable future, the Norwegian

people will chose to stay outwith the European Community. That would be a matter of deep regret for all of us as the Norwegians and the other Scandinavian countries would strengthen the EC in numerous ways.
As I said, my view is that the Bill should be committed to a Special Standing Committee.

Mr. William Cash: I have found the Bill and the agreement extremely difficult, for a number of reasons. I have the gravest reservations about what is effectively the stepson of Maastricht. The agreement sets out to provide for free trading arrangements but, if we dig a little deeper—underneath the mass of verbiage that the Oporto agreement contains and the density of the Bill—we find that two things are happening at the same time: the EFTA states are, almost without exception, applying to join the European Community, yet on the other hand popular opinion in those other countries is moving against the proposals.
We have already had the Swiss example. In France, 58 per cent. of people are now against Maastricht. If the referendum had been held a year later, Maastricht would be dead and buried. In Germany, the figure is probably running at 70 to 75 per cent. against, and in the United Kingdom it is approximately the same. In Spain, the Partido Popular has the gravest reservations. In Bavaria, Mr. Stoiber is strongly against the whole process of further economic and monetary union and will have a huge tussle with Mr. Theo Weigal, who is also a member of CSU. Meanwhile, all levels of government in Germany are up for election next year. The whole process is in the balance, and the Maastricht debate has moved substantially in the direction of the Euro-realists, for which we can all be thankful.
Notwithstanding all that, I am a single market enthusiast. I believe, as I did when I voted for the Single European Act in 1986, much to the surprise of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), that it is essential to try to reduce barriers and at the same time create more reasonable and fair competition between member states. One of my greatest worries about the operation of the single market is that it has become increasingly evident that greater opportunities for trade have not materialised, just as the common agricultural policy has not given the British farmer a better deal.
A kind of schizophrenia runs through the debate. On the one hand, we hear promises such as that given by the Prime Minister at the party conference and in the article in The Economist, which provide us with a degree of optimism—which I should be happy to endorse. On the other hand, there is evidence that people—whether in the EFTA countries or in the EC—do not want the arrangements that are being proposed. At the same time, we have to consider the performance of the Community, with its fraud and corruption, and the increasing desire of the federalists to move forward—I suppose at the 29 October summit.
Chancellor Kohl has said that the only way to avoid war in Europe is by deeper political union. That is a significant statement, made by the Chancellor of Germany at the same time as it was agreed to move the capital of Germany to Berlin by the year 2000. We need a dose of reality, but it is not right to prevent an opportunity for greater competition from being realised. I certainly have


reservations about the way in which the single market is operating. I am deeply worried about the 13th state—the new bureaucracy which I see weaving its way through the Oporto agreement. All the Commission directives, the Council directives—

Sir Teddy Taylor: And the quangos.

Mr. Cash: As my hon. Friend says, quangos and directives are increasing, with greater power going to the centre.
I also have grave reservations about the hope—if I may call it that—expressed in the most interesting speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) that the Bill would provide more diversity and a more loose, enlarged European Community working in our direction. I would like that to be the objective of the Bill and I genuinely believe that the Government think that the enlargement process under the Oporto agreement would provide more diversity and greater flexibility in the European Community.
However, I do not think that the Bill will have that effect. We must remember that, irrespective of the views of people in the member states, their Governments have applied to join the full European Community. The acquis communautaire would be further endorsed by a further step under the Maastricht treaty, creating a consolidated legal framework that many of us believe will destroy the European Community and may have a serious adverse effect on the EFTA countries.
Conflict between the European Court of Justice and proposals for an EFTA court was resolved in favour of the European Court simply because the acquis communautaire includes the assumption that the treaty of Rome, the single market and all the attendant rights, liabilities and obligations will be resolved by the superior Court of Justice. A single market in, for example, competition law cannot operate on the basis of a "pick and choose" legal system. If there is to be one consistent body of law, it will have to be the European Court of Justice.
If all the Council directives covered by the Bill were stacked together in volumes, they would stretch from where I am to the Box at the end of the Chamber. It is a fantastic operation. In a rather curmudgeonly way, I must congratulate the genius of the bureaucrats on being able to produce anything as complex and obscure as this. Another reason for my reservations is that I have not had the opportunity to read the Bill to the extent that I was able to read the Maastricht treaty, yet the Bill is much bigger. I do not believe that the EFTA countries have the faintest idea what it will mean.
If we are optimistic and all the promises are fulfilled—we shall be watching with great care over the next few months—we may be about to create a huge opportunity for a more diversified European Community. That is the hope of the growing number of Euro-realists on the Conservative Benches. However, the Bill represents an underlying political agenda—a stepping stone to a cohesive European union, which is seen by some of our Ministers as a means of preventing the unitary state that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and some of his fellow travellers would like to achieve.
The temperate and carefully worded speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North seemed a serious attempt to bridge some of those gaps, in the hope

that we would not lose too much by agreeing to the Bill. Serious practical problems may affect us. For example, increased environmental standards and the manner in which they are applied to, for example, the manufacture of cars, may cost our manufacturing industry dearly.
It is rather like when we were invited to agree to the exchange rate mechanism. We were told that it would help to bring down inflation and many promises were made, but some of us had grave reservations. When it became apparent that it was a pig in a poke, some of us grew more determined to try to stop it in its tracks. Alas, it went on until the Government were forced out of the mechanism. I hope that the Bill will not lead us into a more bureaucratic, legalistic European Community. I also hope that the political agenda underpinning the Bill, which does not have the support of people in the EFTA countries, will not leave us regretting passing the Bill, if and when we do.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Everyone was interested in the speech of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) because he has been a consistent critic of the Common Market—except during his period as a Minister, when all things that are difficult happen to people. He made the point that legislation which authorises a treaty to bring in European free trade area countries will make the Common Market a less centralised organisation and more of a trading organisation. If that were all that the Common Market is and was aimed to be, more people could stomach it, but the Common Market has always had the aim of being more than a free trade area.
It would be nice if the view advanced by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North were credible, but I do not think it is. It is a perfectly valid opinion to express, but on the basis of our experience it is unlikely to happen. It is true that the enlargement of the trade area is much bigger than anything that has been proposed before, but exactly the same arguments were advanced when Portugal and Spain entered the Common Market: that it would inhibit centralisation and that it would become such a large area that it would not be feasible to have the same degree of centralised control.
On the face of it, that is perfectly plain common sense, but the reality is that centralisation has continued apace because the driving mechanism of the Common Market is not common sense but unification and the determination to turn the Common Market into Europe. Indeed, it is a phrase that it uses. The Common Market has appropriated the name of a continent for a trading area, which has now become common parlance. When people talk about Europe, they talk about the Common Market and the European Community. A friend of mine said that he was going to Europe. I said, "Do you mean the Common Market or Europe?" He said, "Switzerland." I said, "Thank God he used the word in its proper context."
Europe has been hijacked as part of the propaganda exercise by the Common Market. We are all part of the continent of Europe. We are all Europeans, but not every European is part of the inward-looking group of nations that calls itself the Eurpean Community.
I recall Spain and Portugal joining the so-called European Parliament. The European Parliament—this is an example of the extraordinary decisions that are taken under the unification process—wanted 250 officials to make way for 250 officials from Spain and Portugal. It simply sent


home 250 officials from the existing group of nations—on full pay—where they remain to this day because accountability for expenditure is not part of the Common Market. There is no scrutiny, check or counter-balance, as there is in each nation state, because people are too far from the point of expenditure to exercise it. The European Parliament cannot take such action because it does not work like that.
The arrangement proposed in the Bill is parallel to that in the Common Market. A surveillance body will ensure that all legislation affecting trading is identical, and there will be a court to which appeals against decisions of the surveillance body will be taken. The Minister failed to answer the crucial question about whether the European Court or the new court of the European economic area will decide such cases. The Minister did not know the answer and he said that he would write to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who asked the question.
The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North said that it would be nice to have the answer on the record. That is what Hansard is for—to provide information to people about the legislation that will affect them. It will not be put on the record if the Minister writes to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South. Similarly, it will not be on the record if the answer appears in the Library. It must be uttered here in the Chamber: that is very important.
I mention that to show that the Government are not prepared. They have not done their homework well enough to be able to provide the House with the information that it seeks. I find that fact surprising, given all the resources available to them. They are asking the House to pass legislation the consequences of which are not clear to elected representatives.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) spoke of his dilemma. He is in favour of free and open competition and a single market—the bigger the better—but in reality the single market does not work and the old cliché that the United Kingdom obeys the rules and the rest break them is, by and large, true.
As I come from Bradford and represent a Bradford constituency, I am heavily involved in the defence of the textile industry. Eleven thousand people, many of whom live in my constituency, work directly in the textile industry, and between 11,000 and 20,000 depend on it. The BBC made a series of programmes on the Common Market. It investigated the Lana Rossi scandal, in which the Italian Government made grants to an enterprise called Lana Rossi. The Italian Government promised to repay money, but the BBC found that the enterprise had been privatised and the money lost.
Another example concerned the Prato region in Italy, where companies do not have to pay national insurance contributions. That gives them a 10 per cent. advantage in wage payments immediately. The Commission investigated firms in the Prato region, which would not allow it to see the books; so it retired defeated and said, "We cannot tell." The inequality continues.
Those are just two of the hundreds of examples that go on all the time. The notion of a single market working in perfect competition with everybody obeying rules absolutely and with only delivery and quality being the competitive element is an illusion. Business man after

business man will tell us that it is an illusion because they encounter such difficulties, which are called non-tariff barriers.
We know from fairly recent experience that, if the French want to stop imports of television receivers, they say, "We know we cannot do this but we will send all the receivers to one point of entry for scrutiny where they will spend days, weeks and months," because that is how the French civil service works. Our civil service is subject to rules. It must have authority to undertake import surveillance, but the French say to their civil servants, "Do your best to stop things," and they do.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I hope that I have not interrupted the eloquence of his speech. The scheme to which he referred covered the importation of Sony television sets from Japan. It was a hopeless failure. It was quickly abandoned and the French are no longer following the route that he has just described.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is quite right, but the fact is that they did it, whereas we have never done anything like that. I can tell my hon. Friend, who has never been a Minister, that, when I was a Minister for two years, we had the greatest difficulty ensuring import surveillance. Sections of British industry that simply did not know the extent of the competition that they were up against repeatedly asked the Department to intervene. We had delegations from, for example, the Sheffield cutlery industry about import surveillance.
The problem was that we found ourselves up against the Department of Trade and Industry, which was penetrated from top to bottom by uncritical Euro-converts, who said, "We cannot do this, because it will upset the Common Market." Unfortunately, that situation happened all too often. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, who held a rather more exalted position at the Department of Trade and Industry than I, nods in agreement. It was a battle. At one meeting, some civil servants wanted to exclude all civil servants who had a critical word for the Common Market.

Mr. Biffen: There is nothing more exalted than the Back Benches.

Mr. Cryer: I was being ironic, but I should not do so because it does not record well in Hansard.
The proof of our position is in our trade deficit with the Common Market.

Mr. Skinner: It was £1·09 billion last month.

Mr. Cryer: That is right. If we continue to run at last month's figures, the deficit will be more than £12 billion a year. I do not suppose it will reach that incredible figure, but the deficit will be at least £4 billion or £5 billion a year. That last time we had a trade surplus with the Common Market was before we became a member in 1972. Plainly, something is not working well.
The Government suggest that the legislation will improve matters—that it is an opportunity for our traders and manufacturers to benefit—but the evidence is all against that happening. It is contrary to our experience that extending the Common Market will improve our position. Our experience is that entering the Common Market was disastrous for our balance of trade, and as the Common Market has expanded it has become steadily worse.
The Government's argument is that we have to have access to this huge market in order to succeed, but Japan—one of the most successful manufacturing countries that the world has known—does not have a Common Market. Why? Are the Government looking to see if there is somewhere, somehow, information that they have overlooked in their blind search to extend the Common Market?

Dr. Godman: Non-tariff barriers are to be found throughout the European Community. For example, the Government of the Irish Republic will not grant exploration licences to offshore oil and gas companies unless those companies agree to employ Irish nationals. Because of that, there are occasions when rigs and vessels moving from United Kingdom territorial waters have to shed crew members when entering Irish waters to drill for gas and oil.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend gives a good example, which demonstrates that the realities of Common Market membership are far different from its professed nature.
I remember that, when Ireland entered the Common Market, it negotiated tax holidays for investment in manufacturing, which gave it an advantage that continued for many years. If Germany had not reunited, west Germany would have had a trading advantage because of its treaty with east Germany. That has not happened, because the two countries have amalgamated, to our considerable cost.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said that there was to be a convergence fund contained in the new treaty. The EFTA countries will make a contribution to those that are less well-off, and he hinted that that was some sort of socialist measure. There are two serious objections to the view that the Common Market is a socialist organisation. The Minister has quite rightly said that this treaty does not cover the common agricultural policy. We are dealing with a Government who say that the Common Market is a wonderful organisation. Unfortunately, the Labour Front Bench say it is a wonderful organisation but, given time and experience, it will change things. I hope that it will.
The Government and the Opposition agree that the CAP needs changing. The Government say that the legislation will lead to a very lengthy and complicated sequence of events which will improve the Common Market. All I can say is that the promises made over the years have never been fulfilled. Why should we believe the Government now? Why should we accept the view—which I doubt—that a little bit of redistribution around the edges via this new treaty will offset the massive amount of public expenditure that the CAP represents?
The CAP is totally unfair to the poorest nations of the world. When I was an MEP I asked the Common Market Commissioners why they did not have some of the food moved to the countries facing starvation in central Africa and have it stored in warehouses there. Not a chance. They want the money to go to the Common Market farmers. It is the selfishness of the wealthiest countries that causes mountains of food to go rotten. They would rather store the food here for six years, at great expense, than help other countries that are in difficulty. I do not accept the view that the Common Market has anything to do with socialism.
A consequence of this legislation will be the free movement of capital. I am a member of the Labour party

because I have always thought that labour should be at least equal to capital—in fact, it should be superior because we are talking about human beings as opposed to the accrued wealth obtained by exploiting other human beings. If there is free movement of capital, the elected Government of the day will not be able to intervene and say that the priority is people rather than profit. The wealth creators should have the benefits rather than the profiteers. The free movement of capital allows unhindered benefits for the capitalists.
Baroness Thatcher has made many protestations about her criticism of the Common Market. What utter nonsense! She took the country deeper than ever before into the Common Market as soon as she got into government. She did not remove the Exchange Control Act 1948, thank goodness, but she did remove what we call in Euro-speak the derogation—the derogation which gave us some control over capital movements—and thus gave free rein to the capitalists. That took us in deeper because we were denied the advantage that we had negotiated.
The cost of our membership of the Common Market is running at £2·5 billion a year. Will the legislation cost us more, or will we get a net inflow as a result of the influx of capital from the contributions of the EFTA countries? We should be told, as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said.
There was a distasteful speech by the Secretary of State for Social Security. He makes them at every Conservative party conference. He targets single women and says that they get pregnant in order to jump the housing queue when there is no evidence to support that. I mention that only in passing. He also talked about foreign scroungers. I think that that is distasteful. At the same time, it is legitimate to ask the Minister what the clause on the financial effects of the Bill means. It says:
There may be a small amount of additional expenditure as a result of the application of the Income Support Regulations 1987 … to EFTA nationals.
I am not being nationalistic or chauvinistic; I am seeking information.
I am not a little Englander in my attitude to the Common Market, but I seek wider relationships outside the Common Market. I think we should trade and establish relationships with the rest of the world rather than have a big barrier built around 12 nations called the Common Market. It is a legitimate question to ask the Minister. If he does not answer me now, there will be money motions and ways and means motions when he will have to produce some answers. Anyone who thinks that I do not raise questions on money motions should look at my past performances in the House, when hon. Members have been mortified because Parliament has continued for an extra 45 minutes.
In introducing the legislation, the Minister claimed that our manufacturing industry would benefit. During the period in which we have been a member of the Common Market, our manufacturing industry has been decimated everywhere. In Bradford there are deserted sites where mills once stood. Coventry Climax was a famous name for engines and forklift trucks. I have been to Coventry, where all that I saw was two pairs of gates with "Coventry Climax" on them, behind which was a desert the size of four football pitches where workers used to produce machinery. Gone. Those were just a couple of examples. As we know, thousands of jobs have been lost in


manufacturing industry because of the Government's economic policies and the relevant part of this legislation is our membership of the Common Market.
The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North argues that this measure, by bringing in other countries, will dilute the centralised power. I hope that it will, in view of what has happened. For example, when Bob Clay was a Member of Parliament, he used to argue ferociously in the Chamber for a shipyard in Sunderland—the most modern shipyard in the country, renovated relatively recently with a high capital investment—but the Government had done a deal that there should be an enterprise zone in Sunderland, so the relevant Commissioner told them that the shipyard must not be allowed to open.
It is all on the record. Our economic policy is being dictated in general and in detail by Commissioners who owe allegiance not to any electorate, or to any ruling class, middle class or working class, but to a group of people who have the power of patronage to appoint them; and they make decisions over our lives, and the lives of the people of our country. If the legislation did dilute that power, I would agree with it, but judging from experience I do not believe that it will.
I have no doubt that the Government will have a majority tonight, but there will be a Division and some hon. Members will say no to this constant stream of legislation which has no basis in thought or experience because of the adverse conditions that it entails for the people of our country. It is time that it was brought to a stop, and sooner or later the people of this country will wake up and it will be brought to a stop.

Mr. Bell: It is always interesting to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) because he speaks with knowledge and experience; he was a Minister for two years, he speaks with passion and eloquence and he speaks with knowledge, as he comes from Bradford and has seen the decimation of the mills there. He also brings to the debate the passion of the debate and his dealings with the European Community.
Other hon. Members have followed that today and a host of hon. Members have made contributions, from the Minister of State, who opened, to the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who referred to the "seamless robe". He made a fascinating speech, which began with the European Communities Act 1972 and took us to the Single European Act and to the treaty of Oporto. He said, "The Prime Minister travels hopefully," but he travels alone.
The speeches made in the House and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South express arguments that are not made by others in the European Community. The European Community countries hold different views and have a different version of where the future lies from that put forward by the Prime Minister in articles in The Economist—the so-called Brixton manifesto. The right hon. Gentleman can say that in The Economist and he can say that for Conservative spokesmen. When he gets to Heads of Government conferences, whether he makes the same points or not, his voice is not heard. That was the great difficulty which Lady Thatcher, the former Prime Minister, had. When she met the Heads of

Government, she wanted to talk about the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the Uruguay round; she was ignored and instead we got the Maastricht treaty.
The Government have suffered in the country and the House by speaking with two voices—the one that says, "We will stand up for British interests here," and the one at Brussels that surrenders those interests and gives the power to the Commission in Brussels to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South referred.

Mr. Duncan Smith: I must correct the hon. Gentleman on one subject. He said that the Prime Minister travels alone on those aspects about which he wrote in The Economist. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman did not bother to check public opinion across Europe in all the different nation states. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not travel alone. More and more members of the public who voted for their various leaders across Europe have turned against the centralising and the bureaucracy and want less of it. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench do not sign up to that as well.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the intervention. It was the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North who mentioned that the Prime Minister travelled hopefully and I who argued that he travelled alone. The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) should not misinterpret or confuse the European debate throughout the EC, which is a legitimate democratic debate on those important matters, with the overwhelming view or even the majority view of other nation states. When a referendum was held in France, the result was in favour of the Maastricht treaty and the second referendum in Copenhagen came out in favour of it. We must not confuse the debate within a democracy with the eventual decision of the people.
Many speeches have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) made an important speech about free trade, which was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. There is a difficulty. We talk of free trade, when it affects us. We want to have free trade that allows us to sell our goods to Europe, America, New Zealand and Australia. When it comes to other countries selling their goods to us, we want all kinds of hedges and protectionism. That is our dilemma. We want a free market, but only when we can sell. When it turns out that other countries have to sell to us, the idea of the free market is diminished. That dilemma is never resolved. Our difficulties about that are the starting point of our debate.
Of course we support the idea of a single market. I alluded earlier to the rigged market, which my hon. Friends below the Gangway know so well, in our energy decisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South argued that the Adam Smith view of the market, the hidden hand, was based on the premise that investment would be made in the market by those who had the money to invest. The day that we abolished exchange controls in this country in 1979 and allowed capital to go to other markets and not our market formed the basis of our decline, and helped to push this nation state into two recessions and the loss of 1 million jobs.

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Mr. McLoughlin: rose—

Mr. Bell: I give way to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin).

Mr. Jenkin: I apologise to my hon. Friend, but he has got it completely wrong. By maintaining open markets and allowing imports into the country—unlike the example of the videotape recorders going through Poitiers—we allowed the British consumer to buy videotape recorders much more cheaply here than almost anywhere else in Europe. The result was that the Japanese Sony investment came into the country and now we are becoming net exporters of videotape recorders to the rest of Europe. One can still buy them more cheaply in this country than one can in France.

Mr. Bell: I am trying to explain why our nation state went through two recessions and lost 1 million jobs from 1979 to 1981 and from 1987 onward. It happened because of the link between the treatment of the movement of capital and the market. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the subject of the European Community as a whole and explained why there was investment in this country. Of course there was investment in our country in relation to those products.
Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box seem to give us the impression that all the European investment from Japan comes into this country. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as much investment goes into France and more investment now goes into the Scandinavian countries because it is movement in EFTA? To say, therefore, that we get investment in this country because we are part of a single market, when other nation states are part of the same single market is a narrow view to take. But we are widening the debate. I was seeking to respond to some of the arguments which had been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South.
I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), but I will read it with great interest. We heard the intervention by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who spoke on behalf of his constituency, the statement by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South.
People who read our proceedings must wonder where all the supporters of the Bill happen to be tonight. We have not heard many of them speaking and we have had a rather unbalanced debate as a consequence. The only two Members of the House who have supported it have turned out to be the Minister of State and the shadow spokesman, who has not, as the Minister said, yet had the experience of government that he has had—but if the Prime Minister travels in hope, so do I.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I must admit that I seem to have been listening to a different debate from the hon. Member for Middlesborough (Mr. Bell), because I thought that a number of my hon. Friends broadly welcomed the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), a former Secretary of State for Trade, gave the Bill a very warm welcome. It has been one of the few

occasions when there has been a divergence of opinion between my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
In a concise speech lasting some 10 minutes, my right hon. Friend explained the background to his views far better than the hon. Member for Middlesborough, who spoke for 30 minutes, during which we were given a tour of the Conservative party conference. As we had such a successful conference, I was not surprised that we were given a tour of it. I well understand why the hon. Gentleman did not want to dwell too long on his own party conference. He made a number of points which deserve a response.
One of the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East concerned social security payments. The position is quite simple; it is the same as for EC nationals. Those who are not exercising rights under the agreement and are a burden to social security will not enjoy the right of residence here. The rules are reciprocal. United Kingdom nationals in EFTA states will also benefit. That puts it quite simply and the Bill puts into context the points which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security made at Blackpool.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) also welcomed the Bill, and I was grateful for his support. He highlighted some important points about the jurisdiction of the Bill and the way in which the implementation of the agreement will be taken through the courts.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) also welcomed the Bill and set out what he saw as its advantages, such as extending the borders for trade, which I think is particularly welcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East asked me a specific question about Gibraltar. One of the reasons why the reasoned amendment he tabled was not selected is that it falls outside the criteria of the Bill.
We hope to be able to make the necessary provisions, which will require primary legislation, to allow Gibraltar banks to passport into the United Kingdom, but it would be completely inappropriate to do this in a Bill to implement the EEA, and the Governor of Gibraltar has explained the position to the Chief Minister. However, I take my hon. Friend's point. I know that it is something that we want to put right and we will attempt to do so, but this Bill is not the place to do it.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked me a few questions, one relating to shipbuilding. The hon. Gentleman will find his answer on page 276 of the document that he has in front of him. He also asked about the anti-dumping case against Norwegian salmon. There is justification for a Commission investigation to establish the facts and the Department will consider the results of such an investigation on its merits. The Government are pressing the Commission to take it forward, so I hope to have given him some of the reassurance he requires.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), made what was a slightly unusual speech for him as he said that he had not had time to study the document in great detail. I know that my hon. Friend has been rather busy over the past year, however the document was published in October 1992. Therefore, I cannot take too seriously his criticism that he was not able to study it in full detail. Something else which was rather strange for my hon.


Friend was his over-reliance on opinion polls. He said that we should judge our remarks and everything we do by opinion polls. He should not dwell too much on those arguments in future for justification of what should and should not be done.

Dr. Godman: The Minister referred to the declaration concerning shipbuilding on page 276. What is stated there is incorrect. It states:
The 7th directive expires at the end of 1993.
The directive is to continue until the end of 1994. I asked whether the Norwegian shipbuilding subsidy will be brought into line with the level of subsidy awarded under the 7th directive.

Mr. McLoughlin: The point I was making to the hon. Gentleman concerned how it was dealt with in the document. Obviously it will be discussed, but it would not necessarily fall into that category straight away.
I was referring to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and I was grateful, although slightly wary of some of the arguments he pursued.
Every time I hear the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), or the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) I think of the Jurassic Park of the Labour party. The dinosaurs live on as far as their views are concerned. Although the hon. Member for Bradford, South criticised the Community, that did not stop him joining the European Parliament.

Mr. Cryer: I did not join it; I was elected.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman was elected to the European Parliament and then elected to the House of Commons. He was taking a dual mandate and doing two jobs, for which he often criticises many people.
I was also slightly surprised at some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. He almost gave us a Labour party pledge, but bearing in mind that the Labour party made a pledge not to make pledges until it could decide what its policies were, I can forgive him for that. I half got the impression that he was arguing that the Labour party was in favour of the reintroduction of exchange controls.

Mr. Bell: The Labour party is sufficiently sophisticated to realise how difficult that would be and we have no intention of going down that road. I simply wished to point out to the House and the Minister that it was by freeing capital that we destroyed the principle of Adam Smith and that the hidden hand works in a free market, but the investment comes from the investors in that market. It was when that link was broken in 1979 that we encountered so many difficulties.

Mr. McLoughlin: When one is in a hole, one usually stops digging, but the hon. Gentleman continues to try and dig. He is supposed to be one of the more enlightened hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench, but he has shown a yearning for control, so the Labour party seems to have learnt nothing in the past 14 years.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am coming to the end of my speech, but I realise that the hon. Gentleman will have many opportunities to make the points that he wishes to raise so I might as well give way to him.

Mr. Cryer: Is the Minister saying that the Government will never at any time take action to introduce exchange control as Spain and Portugal have recently done in view of movements against their currencies?

Mr. McLoughlin: I was asking the hon. Gentleman whether it was official Labour party policy to reintroduce exchange controls, and he boxed cleverly round that point. The hon. Gentleman also overlooks the fact that we have attracted considerable investment into the country.
The hon. Member for Bolsover represents a constituency in the county of Derbyshire, which I too have the privilege of representing in the House and which has seen sizeable inward investment.

Mr. Skinner: Where?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman does not travel into the south of the county. Derbyshire has seen considerable investment into the county.

Mr. Skinner: I have seen that almost every pit in my constituency has been closed during the past 14 years of Tory Government. When the Tories came in, there were nine pits; they have all been shut. If the Minister is referring to Toyota, it provided jobs for car workers that had been held by people who had jobs in British factories producing other cars. It has just produced another range of cars with jobs for people already doing that, without proper trade union recognition into the bargain.

Mr. McLoughlin: I think that we might be straying slightly wide. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) welcomed the investment that we have seen in the county and the jobs and wealth that it has brought —£770 million of inward investment as a result of that investment. If the hon. Member for Bolsover is saying that the county council neglected to try to get regeneration in his area, he might want to take that up with his party, who run that authority.
We have seen tremendous Japanese investment in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman was unfair when he said that it is going to other countries: 40 per cent. of total Japanese investment is invested in the United Kingdom.
I believe that, as my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, the Bill will extend our market place quite substantially and bring the advantage of those markets more easily to British manufacturers and British industry.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 9.

Division No.367]
[8.11 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alexander, Richard
Booth, Hartley


Ancram, Michael
Boswell, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowis, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Brandreth, Gyles


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brazier, Julian


Baldry, Tony
Bright, Graham


Bates, Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Browning, Mrs. Angela






Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Burns, Simon
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Burt, Alistair
Hunter, Andrew


Butler, Peter
Jenkin, Bernard


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carttiss, Michael
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Cash, William
Kilfedder, Sir James


Chapman, Sydney
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clappison, James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Coe, Sebastian
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Congdon, David
Legg, Barry


Conway, Derek
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lidington, David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lightbown, David


Couchman, James
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Cran, James
Lord, Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Devlin, Tim
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dover, Den
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Duncan, Alan
MacKay, Andrew


Duncan-Smith, Iain
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dunn, Bob
Marlow, Tony


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Merchant, Piers


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Moate, Sir Roger


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


French, Douglas
Moss, Malcolm


Gale, Roger
Nelson, Anthony


Gallie, Phil
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gillan, Cheryl
Norris, Steve


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Patnick, Irvine


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Pickles, Eric


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hague, William
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rathbone, Tim


Hawksley, Warren
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Heald, Oliver
Richards, Rod


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Riddick, Graham


Hendry, Charles
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)





Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thurnham, Peter


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Trend, Michael


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walden, George


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waller, Gary


Spink, Dr Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Waterson, Nigel


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stephen, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Stern, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Sweeney, Walter
Willetts, David


Sykes, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Nicholas Baker and


Thomason, Roy
Mr. Timothy Wood.


NOES


Barnes, Harry
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Beggs, Roy
Trimble, David


Flynn, Paul



Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Further proceedings stood postponed, pursuant to Order [20 October].

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA BILL [Lords] [Money]

Ordered,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Economic Area Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the Act in the sums charged by any other Act upon the public revenue.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

European Economic Area Bill [Lords] [Ways and Means]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Economic Area Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the Act in the sums charged by any other Act upon the people.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Mr. Cryer: As I requested in my speech, will the Minister give an outline of the amount of money that is needed? He probably has a note in front of him for this occasion. As several hon. Members have referred to the financial effects of the Bill as set out in the explanatory and financial memorandum, it would help if the Minister were to explain the cost and financial effects of the Bill and the ways and means that will therefore be required in order to finance the Bill. I am not the only hon. Member to raise this matter. At least one Conservative Member did so too. As the Minister has no doubt been provided with the information, by courtesy of the civil servants, it would be helpful to be given it.
For example, during the debate the Minister said that, with regard to further financial support of the further financial expenditure on the income support regulations, it is a reciprocal relationship with the other EFTA countries—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is usually more astute. We have dealt with the money resolution which affects income support. We are now on the next motion where matters of income support are not appropriate.

Mr. Cryer: The Ways and Means resolution provides for ways and means of meeting expenditure and the total

ways and means should be outlined by the Minister. I should be grateful if he would do that. This question has been raised by several hon. Members, myself included. No doubt the Minister will refer to the first resolution by way of explanation in passing, as he is entitled to do.

Mr. McLoughlin: The Ways and Means resolution is necessary due to the potential for taxation as a result of the effect of clause 2(1) on the existing Acts of Parliament. Clause 2(1) modifies United Kingdom legislation to ensure its consistent application to the whole of the Community and EFTA. It applies to legislation that relates to the subject matter of the EEA agreement. Where the operation of such legislation is limited by reference to the Communities, the reference will, in effect, be substituted by one to the European economic area. So the clause will affect the operation of certain existing Acts of Parliament. Where those Acts imposed taxation, requiring a Ways and Means resolution, the amendment to them by clause 2(1) clearly has a potential to increase taxation. It is for that reason that the House rules require a money resolution.
The financial memorandum to the Bill describes three specific areas where there is likely to be increased expenditure—£1·1 million per year in 1996–97 as a result of the application of the EC social security regulations to EFTA nationals; a small amount as the result of the application of the income support regulations 1987 to EFTA nationals; an increase in United Kingdom and other member states' fourth resource contributions to the EC budget as a result of the reduction of agricultural levies that contribute to the EC's own resources. Those all arise from directly applicable Community obligations.

Question put and agreed to.

European Economic Area Bill [Lords]

Bill immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [20 October].

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

AGREEMENT ON EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 1, line 5, after 'Act,', insert 'in the list.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Sir Teddy Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 9, at end add
'save that Protocol 3 of the Agreement shall not come into effect until 1st January 2000.'.
This is a probing amendment. Protocol 3 refers to the changes in the agricultural arrangements of the basic contracts between the EC and EFTA. My sole question .is whether that will add to the agriculture expenditure of the Community in any respect.
It is rather a serious matter which I raise because I have just received a letter from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pointing out how, unfortunately, expenditure on agriculture within the common agricultural policy is wholly out of control. It seems that we are exceeding the guidelines, the mountains are at an all-time high and we have had the frightening news from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the price of food for the average family is now being forced up by £24 a week. My sole question is whether protocol 3, if operating, will add in any way to the expenditure of the EC on food or food disposal.

Mr. McLoughlin: It is not clear to what extent EC exporters will wish to take advantage of the provisions in protocol 3. But the general point is that both expenditure from the CAP budget to EC exporters and payments into its levies from EFTA goods are likely to be reduced. It is wrong, therefore, to draw the conclusion that protocol 3 would lead to an increase in the CAP budget. Protocol 3 aims to improve the trade between the EC and EFTA by reducing tariffs on certain processed agricultural products. I hope that that is an objective that my hon. Friend will support.
It is impossible to estimate the precise financial effects of protocol 3. We do not know the extent to which the EC or EFTA exporters will take advantage of the provisions or whether they will choose to continue to use protocol 2 of the 1973 EC/EFTA free trade agreement. Moreover, any reduction in import levies on EFTA goods paid into the budget may be offset by a reduction in export funds paid out of it from EC exporters.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 9, at end add
'together with the Protocol adjusting that Agreement signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10.

Mr. McLoughlin: The amendments take account of the protocol that excludes Switzerland from the EEA agreement.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cryer: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 24, at end insert
'and approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 6, in clause 5, page 3, line 37, leave out from 'instrument' to end of line 40 and insert
'but this power shall not be exercisable unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by each House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Cryer: Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 relate to the delegated powers contained in the primary legislation. Because of the important nature of the legislation, the two amendments would have the effect of converting the discretion to use either an affirmative procedure instrument or a negative procedure instrument at the discretion of the Minister to requiring an affirmative procedure instrument.
8.30 pm
The Government make massive use of delegated powers. In 1992, they produced 3,500 statutory instruments—most of which were subject to the negative procedure. In theory, that procedure—for which the Bill makes provision—is fine if, as is required, the instrument is deposited in the House and lies on the Table for 40 days. During those 40 days, a prayer can be tabled—and even after the expiry of those 40 days a revocation motion can be tabled. The Government lay many instruments during a recess, which is not exactly the way to open government and full accountability. During any recess, praying days can be lost. If the Law Lords or the other place sits—and even if this House does not—they also count as praying days. Therefore, the days on which a prayer can be tabled can tick away.
That is bad enough, but there is still the possibility of a revocation motion. The question then arises of the time allocated to debate a prayer. In reality, few opportunities are available to the House to debate a prayer on a negative procedure instrument. In 1992, about 125 prayers were laid but only a couple of dozen were given time to be debated on the Floor of the House or upstairs in the merits Committee. The time available to debate prayers is limited.
Also, there are moves by some hon. Members—and I hope that they are defeated—to curtail the number of hours that the House sits. I believe that they are mistaken. One cannot have a legislature that finishes at 5, 6 or 7 o'clock. If we did so, that would further curtail the time available for negative procedure instruments—and we cannot be sure that the Jopling proposals will not be adopted. I do not like those proposals because one of our responsibilities is to take a closer and better look at delegated legislation.
The amendments provide that, with this legislation, the only instruments will be affirmative procedure instruments—which means that time would have to be provided. That would not be done at the discretion of the Minister but would be a requirement of the primary legislation, which is important.
I acknowledge that negative procedure instruments are acceptable in some cases. In a modern, sophisticated society, Ministers must produce legislation—and I am not saying that delegated powers should be removed. They are important and necessary. One must, however, make a


judgment as to whether the powers granted to a Minister are of a degree of importance that means that Parliament must scrutinise the delegated powers. The Minister should not try to slip them through.
As the Secretary of State knows, Ministers do try to slip things through. Next week, we shall debate mine safety regulations that were tabled on 6 August, not long after Parliament had risen for the summer recess, and came into effect shortly afterwards. They had become law before Parliament had any opportunity to consider them. While it is true that we shall have such an opportunity next week, we shall debate regulations that are already in operation—and that is often the case.
The Bill is linked to a large, detailed and comprehensive treaty—a copy of which can be seen on the Opposition Dispatch Box. The Bill, which is fairly brief, gives important powers to the Minister and the amendments will ensure that that legislation—which has been the subject of some criticism—will automatically be subject to scrutiny when it is put into operation by the delegated powers. That would not be a bad thing, as I have argued in respect of other legislation. We should opt more for the affirmative rather than negative procedure.
I speak from a prejudiced position as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. Such measures pass before my eyes in their hundreds every month at this time of the year. Both Committees know full well the volume of delegated powers that the Government are producing, because they have a huge backlog of statutory instruments from the summer months.
It causes me genuine concern that Parliament is not giving them adequate scrutiny. People suffer as a consequence of badly drafted or incompetently worded legislation. Some alarm is felt because a fair measure of criticism is directed at instruments from the Lord Chancellor's Department, which one might expect to get them right the first time.
The statutory instruments Committees often report to the House that a Minister is exceeding his powers, and that those that he claims are not within the scope of the primary legislation and are ultra vires. By and large, the House ignores such reports—although it does have an opportunity to debate the issue if the affirmative procedure is used. If the measure is subject to a prayer and is not debated, it will be passed. The people who are affected then have to go to court.
Courts are expensive places, and if people do not have the means to use them they are left to suffer from legislation that was not subject to scrutiny by the House. If Ministers produce badly worded legislation, that is a failure on the part of the House. This legislature should try to produce legislation that is as clear and precise as possible, without it being necessary to refer it to the courts.
It would be better if clauses I and 5 were subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so that their provisions would come before the House and any faults would be exposed. There would be no question of the Minister seeking to avoid the issue, or of there being no opportunity for debate even if the Minister was keen to discuss the measure but the Leader of the House said that there was not the time available to do so.
The amendments would provide for automatic scrutiny, and I hope that the Minister will say that they are an excellent idea. I suspect that he will not, because all Ministers want the easy option. We should not take the

easy option. I want more and more affirmative procedures, so that the House begins to wake up to its responsibility to exercise scrutiny of the vast volume of delegated legislation.
This Government have produced more delegated legislation than any other in the history of Parliament. It is not surprising that Parliament needs to catch up, to ensure the degree of scrutiny to which the people of this nation are entitled.

Mr. McLoughlin: When I saw the amendment tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) I took it very seriously. He said that I would automatically reject his amendment. He will remember that on a number of occasions during the Committee dealing with the Transport and Works Bill I accepted his suggestions because he made some valid contributions. I therefore looked particularly carefully at this amendment. I had heard his speech before and I knew the arguments that he would use. Although the hon. Gentleman has attacked the use of certain powers available to Ministers, he was pleased when we used one such power on a company of which he is a non-paid director.

Mr. Cryer: I am not a director—I have five £10 shares. The Minister is talking about 1967, when the only way of obtaining a light railway was through a ministerial order which was not the subject of any further parliamentary procedure. I have tried to improve things since being elected.

Mr. McLoughlin: If I am guilty of anything today, making the hon. Member for Bradford, South laugh is a pleasure to us all.
The hon. Gentleman will expect me to explain why I cannot accept his amendment. As I have said, I hope that he will accept that I have looked at it seriously. It may help if I explain the proposed effect of clause 5.
Clause 5 provides that the powers to make regulations under clauses 2(2) and 3(2) are exercised by statutory instrument. The instruments may be subject to either the negative or the affirmative resolution procedure in the same manner as an instrument under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The clause follows the formula in paragraph 2(2) of schedule 2 to the 1972 Act. The 1972 Act allows either affirmative or negative procedure to be adopted so that the regulations under section 2(2) of that Act may be combined with regulations made under the powers in other Acts. These Acts may provide for either negative or affirmative procedure, but not for both. The flexibility provided for in the 1972 Act allows section 2(2) regulations to be made using whichever procedure applies under the other Act.
The same consideration applies to regulations under clause 2(2) or clause 3(2) of the Bill. If clause 5 provided only for either the negative or the affirmative procedure, there would be occasions when regulations made under other enactments but on the same matter would have to be subject to different procedures and, as a consequence, different instruments. That would be an unnecessary confusion. In fact, it would increase the number of statutory instruments with which the Government would be required to deal. It would be a waste of time and resources and it would be unhelpful to readers to have to understand the relationship between them. It is far better to ensure that the two sets of regulations are made in the same instrument and are subject to the same procedure.

Mr. Cryer: In view of the explanation given by the Minister and the fact that it is now on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: I should point out to the Committee that there is a printing error in that amendment. It should have referred to clause 2. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) did not notice that. That is why I have put the question on clause 1 out of sequence.

Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 3, line 46, at end add—

'as adjusted by the Protocol signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993.'.

No. 8, page 4, line 3, at end add—

'(2) References in this Act to the date on which the Agreement comes into force are references to the date on which (in accordance with the Protocol signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993) it comes into force otherwise than as regards Liechtenstein.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

SHORT TITLE

Amendment proposed: No. 9, page 4, line 6, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister cannot simply ask us to accept that the subsection should be withdrawn without an explanation. The words to be removed state:
Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money".
Basically, it says that it will not cost us a penny. The least that we should do is ask the Minister what charges he thinks might arise. What levies might arise? Several of us have expressed the view that this will cost us money. We must know why subsection (2) is being taken out. Do the Government now envisage that there will be charges, levies or something else?

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall try to explain the point to my hon. Friend. This is a procedural amendment relating to privilege. When a Bill involving expenditure starts in the House of Lords, it inserts a privilege amendment which preserves the convention that the Lords does not deal with money measures. That is sidelined in black in the version of the Bill introduced in the House of Commons. This amendment removes that provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 4

APPLICATION OF EC LEGISLATION

'.—Her Majesty's Government shall be obliged to make a report each year to each House of Parliament which provides a full list of the European legislation which is applicable to the members of EFTA in consequence of the Agreement of Oporto.'.—[Sir Teddy Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Chairman: With this we shall consider new clause 5—Report to Parliament—
'A Minister of the Crown shall lay before Parliament every six months a report setting out all transactions Her Majesty's Government has undertaken in the preceding six months in pursuance of the obligations of the United Kingdom under the Agreement including those undertaken on its behalf by the Commission of the European Community, together with a description of any agreements reached or decisions come to under the Agreement during that period by the European Community or its Member States and such countries as have ratified the Agreement or any body acting on behalf of those countries.'.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I do not want to detain the House. I have referred to the massive amount of Euro-legislation that the unfortunate EFTA countries will have to abide by, even though they played no part in drawing it up. This matter could be resolved if the Minister would say that he will send me a note, perhaps next week or the week after, giving a list of the Euro-directives and legislation that the EFTA countries will have to adopt now. Perhaps he could put a copy in the Library. It would be helpful to know whether it is three or four measures or nine or 10 measures. I am not asking the Minister to do this every year, but if he promises to send that note and put a copy in the Library, I should be happy to withdraw the motion and let hon. Members get away. It is a simple request.
All the EFTA countries will have to have such a list because they are now obliged to obey that Euro-legislation. I appreciate that democracy is now almost totally dead in this country and that Parliament is almost totally irrelevant in that respect, but the people should be told what is happening. If the Minister will send me a note, prepared with the help of all the clever people in the Foreign Office, that will do me fine. For the one or two Members who are interested, a copy could be placed in the Library. That would be a satisfactory conclusion to the debate.
Throughout the debate we have had a helpful, constructive and positive Minister. He has helped us to conclude our discussion much earlier than would otherwise have been the case. I should be grateful if he could make a positive response to a basic question, and we could then pull stumps.

Mr. Cryer: I should like to speak to new clause 5. It is much the same as that tabled by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
It would be helpful if, instead of writing notes to hon. Members, the Minister were to accept one of the new clauses so that he could formally lay one note in the Library, which is the convention. We merely seek a record of the progress—if that is the right word—or the regression as the Oporto agreement is implemented.
New clause 5 involves a more frequent requirement: it asks for a report every six months rather than every year. The report would note the transactions undertaken by the Government in the previous six months in pursuance of the obligations laid down in the very fat volume of the treaty. The new clause would also require that anything undertaken by the Commission should also be listed because it is important that we are able to keep track of what the Commission is up to.
In theory, the Commission does only what the Council of Ministers requires it to do but, of course, the Commission also presents reports and makes suggestions


to the Council of Ministers, either on its own initiative or in response to the Council of Minister's proposals. We should like a note of what the Commission has undertaken in the previous six months. New clause 5 also calls for
a description of any agreements reached or decisions come to under the Agreement … by the European Community or its Member States and such countries as have ratified the Agreement or any body acting on behalf of those countries.
It is a reasonable requirement.
A criticism accepted by members of all parties is that the Common Market is too remote. We know that legislation is being passed by directive. Hon. Members do not see the directive but see a statutory instrument which implements the directive. As the Committee knows, I am in a more privileged position than most hon. Members because I have to read most of the statutory instruments produced by the legislative blunderbuss of the Common Market.
New clause 5 would require a simple report twice a year to tell hon. Members what is happening. We may approve or deplore what is happening, but at least we would know. What other way is there of finding out? It is true that we have an excellent department in the Library which deals with EC affairs, but it sometimes gets things wrong.
I remember when we received the first outline of the Maastricht agreement. I received a copy from the Library but, within a few days, I received a hasty note saying, "Terribly sorry, that draft is out of date. We have another." It is a difficult job for the Library department. As the Government are involved, they could easily place a report in the Library as suggested in the new clause.
Not all 651 hon. Members would make a beeline for the Library but those who were interested could do so. The Common Market is not the most stimulating topic of conversation. Indeed, if one wants people to go away, one has only to turn to them and start talking about it and one will find that crowds will break up easily. What I am suggesting would be a service to all hon. Members but, in practice, only a few would go to the Library. Those of us who are interested are not being unreasonable in suggesting that Ministers should provide the necessary information regularly.
The new clause would enable Ministers to reach out to the rest of the nation. If something proves useful, we can publicise it. If something proves difficult or onerous, we could highlight that, too. We could also use the procedures of the House, as we already do for other matters: if something listed in the report were disadvantageous to the United Kingdom, an hon. Member could secure an Adjournment debate or raise the issue by the various methods that Parliament affords to hon. Members.
The Minister likes to say often that I served for five years—I was elected on an anti-Common Market basis, I might add—in the EC Assembly. It was an experience. This House affords us many more opportunities to raise issues than the rigid, authoritarian European body which,

in reality, is run by the leaders of all the political parties. Although we were not in fact prevented from doing so, critics like myself had great difficulty in airing our views. The House offers many opportunities which we cherish.
If hon. Members were to receive the necessary information in a bi-annual report, we would be able to take advantage of it if we wished to do so. That is a small request, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister's brief says.

Mr. McLoughlin: It is always a pleasure to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), although I do not know whether he will want me to write to him in the way that he suggested. However, I can go some way to meeting his request and that of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
I share the concern that Parliament should be properly informed of developments in the European economic area. However, the new clause is not necessary as, under the Bill as it stands, Ministers will make two types of report to Parliament on the EEA. Moreover, the new EEA Acts extending to EFTA will be subject to scrutiny under our normal procedures and will be published in the new EC section of the Official Journal.
Once the agreement comes into force, the Government will report twice a year to Parliament on the operation of the EEA in a six-monthly White Paper on developments in the European Community. There will be a new section in the White Paper exclusively for the EEA. That follows a recommendation of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, made in its report on free trade with EFTA on 25 July 1990. I hope that I have proved how we shall meet the request of my hon. Friend and that of the hon. Member for Bradford, South without the need for the new clause.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am grateful for the Minister's kind and considerate answer. It is very interesting to know that we shall receive so much information in various reports but I was not looking for all that. I merely wanted a list of legislation. We can reach a compromise. I shall table a written question on Monday asking the Minister to list legislation by which EFTA countries will have to abide as a consequence of the Oporto agreement. I shall read the answer in Hansard, which will save the Minister trouble. If he really wants to do all that he has offered, I shall be grateful and pleased, and so will everyone else, but there is no need for him to go out of his way.
I thank the Minister for being so understanding. He has done a grand job tonight. I shall table a written question, which will satisfy me and which will, I hope, interest the democratic community. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 10, in title, at end add
'as adjusted by the Protocol signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Education (North-West Kent)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Mr. Bob Dunn: I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, who will respond to my argument. Although the debate is about educational provision in north-west Kent, it must of necessity centre on parental rights and school democracy. I shall also introduce the concept of the "right to silence", in the context not of police interrogation of suspects, but of the withholding of their views by the representatives of left-of-centre political parties which sought election to Kent county council in May and which now control it.
Let me sketch my concerns. In 1988, when I was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary at what was then called the Department of Education and Science, I gladly assisted in the passage of the Education Reform Act. Among other provisions, the Act sets down procedures according to which governors and parents seek grant-maintained status and, if successful, take their schools out of local education authority control. Those procedures ultimately involve the parents or guardians of children at such a school in the exercise of school democracy through a parental ballot.
I am also glad to welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)—I know that he would like to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who has been a doughty fighter on behalf of parents in her constituency since we lost control of Kent county council in May.
Between the passage of the 1988 Act and 18 June 1993, four secondary schools in the Dartford constituency successfully applied for and achieved grant-maintained status. Those were Dartford grammar school for boys, Dartford grammar school for girls, the grammar school for girls, Wilmington—that was the first school in Kent to opt out—and Wilmington grammar school for boys. As well as the secondary schools, the Sutton-at-Hone Church of England primary school also received permission to become grant-maintained.
I have already referred to the period between the 1988 Act coming into force and 18 June 1993. The House may ask what the importance of that date is. It is significant because, on 18 June, the new Liberal-Labour majority on Kent education committee voted
to change its policy on grant maintained schools, from adopting a neutral stance towards schools seeking to opt out of County Council control, to vigorously encouraging them to stay within it.
That change was and is fundamental. I believe that no mandate for it was put before the electors of Kent—at least, not in my part of Kent—by the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats, or by the candidates that they fielded.
When the Conservative party controlled the county of Kent, a neutral stance towards grant-maintained applications was adopted, and of course the authority made objections to some proposals that were considered not to be viable. However, the Conservatives on Kent county council made it clear that, when a parental vote in favour of seeking grant-maintained status was announced, all efforts to keep the school within the embrace of the local education authority would cease. The wishes of parents and governors would be the guiding force. Until May 1993,

Kent county council took the altogether proper view that grant-maintained schools in Kent employed Kent teachers to educate Kent children on behalf of Kent parents.
However, since 18 June, another Dartford primary school, Holy Trinity Church of England school, has received approval for grant-maintained status from 1 January 1994, despite hostile objections from Kent county council.
Equally, the Horton Kirby Church of England primary school held a successful ballot, in which a majority of parents voted to opt out. Liberal Democrat/Labour Kent has moved in a hostile fashion against that school, despite the wishes of the parents and despite the unanimous vote of the governing body, which to my certain knowledge has on it some governors who do not vote Conservative. This application, which I fully endorse, is with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education for a decision.
My hon. Friend the Minister will see from the picture I am painting that the policy of grant-maintained schools has been extremely successful in north-west Kent. Nevertheless, the schools that have chosen not to seek a change in status or whose parents may decide to vote no after a properly conducted debate have a claim on my time, support and affection equal to that of the schools that have taken advantage of a policy that I helped to create in the late 1980s.
I now turn to my further concerns, which I suspect are shared by my hon. Friends across Kent, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who asked to be associated with this debate. My concerns are these. The Conservatives lost control of Kent in May this year. The first act of Liberal Democrat/Labour-controlled education committee was to abandon neutrality and to replace it with hostility—a policy now practised consistently against any application made.
I now make a serious charge, which is that, in my constituency at the most recent Kent county council elections, not one Labour or Liberal Democrat candidate, I believe, proclaimed that, if elected and if his or her party was in a position of power after the May elections, he or she would vote to oppose grant-maintained applications as a matter of hard policy.
I have read Labour and Liberal Democrat leaflets, boring though they may be, issued to electors across Dartford, and of those that I have seen, not one has mentioned that change of policy. Interestingly, all the parties at county hall published a countrywide political manifesto. Did the Liberal Democrats and socialists at county hall announce their hostility to grant-maintained schools and to such applications? Not likely. They opted for the right of silence.
Of course, if I am wrong and if a candidate from the left-of-centre parties in Dartford constituency had the courage of his or her policy and mentioned it in the issued leaflets, I shall publicly acknowledge that fact. I challenge the parties to supply me with proof of leaflets issued with their hostility to the grant-maintained policy contained therein.
Those who were elected for left of centre parties from my constituency to Kent county council are, of course, now happy after the election to condemn the policy of grant-maintained schools, and violently to oppose any applications that may come their way. Now they are, of course, beyond the reach of the electorate. I ask, on behalf of my concerned constituents: if the policy of allowing


schools to opt out is so worthy of condemnation, why was nothing said by the local left-of-centre party candidates during the Kent county council elections?
I now turn to Mr. Pryke. Under the Conservatives, he was appointed to be our chief education officer. He had always behaved in a truly professional manner, and I was never directly aware of the immense dissatisfaction and disaffection he inwardly felt towards Government education policy. I cannot remember an expression of major concern—although I may be wrong—by Mr. Pryke to me about grant-maintained schools. I am sure that my colleagues from Kent will back me on that—[Interruption.] Indeed, they are doing that by nodding their assent. Mr. Pryke kept silent and, as a servant of the authority, perhaps he was right to do so.
With the change in the political status in Kent, with one bound he was free. Thus we saw an astonishing article in The Times Educational Supplement on 1 October, which was soundly answered by our good friends Ronnie Norman and Mr. Cecil Knight.
However, it does not stop there. I have a letter dated 1 October 1993, which was sent to the parents of pupils attending Our Lady of Hartley Roman Catholic primary school by the area director of education for north-west Kent. That letter was sent to parents in Hartley after the school governors had initiated a ballot on grant-maintained status.
The area director states:
Grant-maintained means:

Control by central government;
No better standards of education for your child;
More in-school bureaucracy;
No Local arbitrator for you, the parents."

The final sentence reads:
and there is no assured long term benefit.
I bring that letter to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education, because I believe the issue of that letter to be a hostile act. I hope that he will take it into account if, as I hope, a submission from that school comes his way.
I hope that what I have said already is of interest to my hon. Friend the Minister. It is deeply important for the people of Dartford and, I suspect, for people in constituencies across Kent who have always attached great importance to the range, variety and choice available to them in the education of their children. If the county of Kent wishes to be set alongside Lambeth and Derbyshire, so be it. In a match of the people versus Kent county council, I am happy to say that I will always back the people I represent.
Let me leave the final word to two of my local head teachers, who were quoted in a local paper on the question of grant-maintained status. Mrs. Jill Hadman, the head of Dartford Girls grammar school, said:
I am very surprised at Mr. Pryke's comments. We have done a tremendous amount for the pupils since we opted out. We have increased accommodation, provided a full range of expressive arts at examination level in response to parents and got our own language lab.
In two years, we have had the flexibility to do so many things that we previously wanted. There is the sixth form common room for 230 students, additional classrooms and heating system.
Mrs. Hadman said that she thought that she was far more accountable than before, with no more passing the buck to education officials. She added:

We do, of course, need to co-operate with local education authorities on issues such as admissions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) will raise that point later.
Mr. Les Clarke is the head teacher of the Holy Trinity primary school which has just received permission to opt out. He said:
We are in a strong position with good buildings and have numerous things we want to forge ahead with once we get our budget. Parents are very much in favour and I can only see the school going from strength to strength.
That is the point of our philosopy: to push responsibility from the hub to the rim.
I have seen the schools in my constituency that have become grant-maintained benefit from a new dimension of dynamism and activity. The four points that the area director listed are utter rot, and the authority should be ashamed of them. I hope that, in time, more of my local schools will apply to opt out, and I hope that the Minister will be seized by the arguments that I have advanced, to prevent this activity in the county of Kent.
Finally, I thank Madam Speaker for allowing me this debate on the important subject of parental rights. As I have said, if it is a question of the people or bureaucracy, the people will get my support every time.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for initiating this debate, which is vital to the education of children in north-west Kent, both in his borough of Dartford and in mine of Gravesham. I can confirm that, in the most recent county council election in Kent, no Labour or Liberal Democrat candidate in Gravesham told the electorate that he or she would conduct this disreputable campaign against grant-maintained schools.
In Gravesham, we have eight excellent secondary schools, two single-sex grammar schools, two Church comprehensives, two single-sex high schools and three mixed high schools—two in urban areas and one in the rural area. Together, they provide an excellent choice for parents. Every one of them embraced local financial management with enthusiasm. It has been a very effective scheme, brought in by Kent county council when it was Conservative, and implemented by an excellent team of officers led by Roy Pryke.
These schools then looked to the opportunities of GM status, which brings with it total local decision-making and financial control in schools. It is a logical extension of Kent's Conservative policy of local financial management. The schools in Gravesham carefully considered and steadily went towards GM status, with overwhelming parental support—votes of 90 per cent. and more in school after school—for instance, St. George's Church of England school, Meopham school, Southfields school, Northfleet school for boys. Parents are now balloting at St. John's Roman Catholic school.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford was right about the letters from the area director of education. The parents at St. John's received the same hostile and misleading letter, with hardly a change besides the name of the school itself.
It is ironic that both the grammar schools—Gravesend grammar school for boys and Gravesend grammar school for girls—remain among Kent county council's secondary schools. They both know that the new Labour/Liberal Democrat alliance that is running Kent county council is


hostile to them. According to the policy and instincts of both parties, they would scrap the Gravesend grammar schools, but the fascinating thing is that they cannot do so, trumped by the capacity that the Government have given the schools to go grant-maintained and thus beyond the destructive clutches of the Lib-Lab alliance running the council. So the council has grudgingly accepted the continuing existence of these excellent schools, on the grounds that it is better to have a grammar school in the clutches of Kent county council than no school at all.
Considering all the advantages flowing from local financial management and then grant-maintained status, all should be well—and I can report to the House that all is well in the schools. But all is not well in terms of Kent county council's relations with those schools.
I have a letter from the Rev. Joe King, chairman of the governors of St. George's Church of England school. The House should be aware of this gentleman's background. He appeared in the election address of my Labour opponent at the general election, and he strongly endorsed Labour policy and the Labour candidate. That letter IS also signed by four other chairmen of school governors, one of whom is also a strong Labour party supporter and a CND member to boot, and seven head teachers.
This letter from the Rev. Joe King, the Labour supporter, and his colleagues states:
The Authority's"—
that is, Kent county council's—
previous neutral stance has apparently been replaced by a very vindictive approach in which a school that has recently obtained Grant Maintained status has experienced petty obstructionism. Two schools in the process of becoming Grant Maintained are experiencing outright opposition from the Authority. Head Teachers are placed in an invidious position in relation to their Local Authority colleagues when matters of concern to all schools are being discussed and there is no clarity in what we can expect from the Local Authority. The matters they should discuss with us include admissions, and failure to reintroduce the proper professional structures will prejudice the education of children in Gravesham.
Another vindictive attack that has come to light may be of interest to the House. Kent county council, now in Lib-Lab control, has exploited historic arrangements relating to the funding of special needs education in grant-maintained schools, and that directly affects young people with special educational needs. Having brought that to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, I am glad that he has already tackled the issue with his new code of practice, provided for in the Education Act 1993.
The House would expect to see all schools, regardless of their status, co-operating to provide good education in their areas. Furthermore, it would expect Kent county council to continue to work for the good of education in Kent. However, Kent county council education committee is now under the malign influence of the political prejudices of the new Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition. Mr. Pryke, the chief education officer who has been mentioned in the debate, has made destructive partisan utterances.
We should be absolutely clear on the meaning of grant-maintained status. Some 10 per cent. of education funds is now being spent by grant-maintained schools. That is the proportion of the funding for education that is spent on specialist and administrative services, and that money cannot be spent twice. If it is spent by the grant-maintained schools, as it quite properly is, it cannot be spent by the central education administration of Kent county council.
Consequently, the central administration of Kent county council must slim down accordingly. If it does not, those additional funds can come from only one of two places —Kent county council's taxpayers or the remaining schools under the county council, and that would be totally wrong.

Mr. Dunn: The point to be made in the debate is that it is Mr. King, a Labour supporter, who speaks about the vindictive approach of Kent county council. The children who are being taught in schools that have become grant-maintained are still Kent children. Has not the Lib-Lab coalition that runs the county council effectively declared war on those children and their parents? We are taught to respect the wishes and the result of the ballot box. Why cannot our new masters in Kent county council do the same?

Mr. Arnold: That is the point. The Rev. Joe King, the chairman of the governors, a parish priest and a person who normally keeps out of politics—although he intervened on behalf of the Labour party at the last general election—is so worried about the welfare of the children in his schools that he has spoken out.
My feeling is that Mr. Pryke, as head of the central education administration in Kent, should concentrate on the slimming-down process of that bureaucratic core. He should not spend his time playing politics in pursuit of his vested interests. He has to remember that he is an expert employee of Kent county council. He is not a councillor. He is, indeed, a servant of that county council. He should attend to his duties.
Schools in Gravesham are working well. They are co-operating well. They could do so even better with the co-operation of Kent county council. Those schools have my support in their continuing endeavours to provide first-rate education to the youngsters of Gravesham.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) has done a service to his constituents and the House tonight in making a speech that was so well prepared and delivered. It drew on his wide experience and knowledge of education matters. The only pity is that, although he criticised the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, the Benches opposite were empty. Labour and Liberal Democrat Members will have to read his words in Hansard.
My hon. Friend was eloquently backed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who is a fellow Minister.
Before I go to the heart of my hon. Friend's speech, I hope that he will understand that I cannot comment on the specific school proposals to which he referred. They are currently with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I assure him that they will receive the closest possible attention. I hope that we shall release a decision as soon as practicable.
I have good news for the House and for my hon. Friends. Today, I approved no fewer than five more grant-maintained schools. There are now 754 grant-maintained, self-governing schools approved or operating in England.
Self-governing, grant-maintained, status is the most complete form of local management for schools. Parents in an ever-increasing number of schools are voting for it. In the White Paper published in July 1992, the Government made clear their commitment to grant-maintained schools and their hope that, in time, all schools would become grant-maintained. Measures in the Education Act 1993 will ease the transition to grant-maintained status and ensure that an increasing number of grant-maintained schools enjoy the best operating conditions.
Grant-maintained schools control their total budget, and this enables them to focus spending where it counts—on the delivery of education in the classroom. Grant-maintained schools are popular with parents and effective. Independent schools have noted good-quality lessons and deployment of resources, increased demand for places, commendable pupil behaviour and attendance and improved teacher morale.
The grant-maintained movement is about much more than money. Grant-maintained schools find that there are enormous benefits in being masters of their own affairs and having a real sense of ownership. Grant-maintained schools can make proposals for change directly to the Secretary of State—for example, on the age range of pupils.
Decisions are taken by parents, teachers and members of the local community—those who care about the school most, are closest to it and can take decisions faster than a bureaucracy every could. Grant-maintained status encourages increased parental involvement, from the initial ballot for grant-maintained status to increased numbers of parent governors on a grant-maintained governing body.
Despite their new-found independence, grant-maintained schools are far from isolated. There have been encouraging reports of such schools co-operating with one another by sharing information and making joint decisions about the purchase of services. What is more, there is no reason why grant-maintained schools should not continue to have an excellent relationship with schools which remain with the LEA. For example, schools can and do continue to co-operate in sixth form consortia.
My hon. Friends the Members for Dartford and for Gravesham appreciate the resounding arguments in favour of grant-maintained status. They will both be delighted to witness the growth of the grant-maintained sector in their county.
Kent is in the forefront of the grant-maintained movement. Ballots have been held in more than 50 per cent. of Kent secondary schools—more than one in eight schools in general. Only one LEA, Essex, has more grant-maintained schools than Kent. Indeed, of the 754 English schools which have now approved for grant-maintained status, 69, or almost one in 10, are in Kent.
The first self-governing secondary schools in Kent were incorporated in September 1989, and the first self-govering primary schools were incorporated in January 1992. The sector has expanded rapidly since then, and 39 per cent. of Kent secondary schools are now grant-maintained. More than 100 heads have attended conferences in Kent on going grant-maintained.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham pointed out, the sector in Kent now embraces a wide range of schools: selective as well as comprehensive schools,

primary and middle schools as well as large secondary schools, county schools and voluntary schools affiliated to both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, as well as ex-county schools.
Nationally, about four out of five grant-maintained ballots result in a yes vote. I am delighted to say that, in Kent, the rate is higher still, at almost 95 per cent., showing clearly that Kent parents recognise what is best for their children's schools.
There has been a great deal of speculation about the effect of the change of county council control on the growth of the grant-maintained sector in Kent, and my hon. Friends both referred to that tonight. However, what really matters is not what Kent county council thinks but what Kent parents think.
Measures in the Education Act 1993 will help to ensure that opinions in county hall do not control parents' thinking. They will create a fair and balanced debate by providing grants to governors to cover the cost of informing parents about grant-maintained status from the 1 January 1994. They will also limit the amount that LEAs can spend on influencing the outcome of the ballot.
Of course, LEAs that are opposed to grant-maintained status are perfectly entitled to put their views to parents in any school that is considering opting out of local authority control. There have been some instances in which LEAs and others have submerged parents under a sea of paper in the process of putting forward their case, while schools have had limited resources with which to conduct their campaign.
It is also important that the information that is sent to parents, from whatever side, is objective, explanatory, factual and non-political in content, tone or presentation. To help to achieve that, the Department and the Society of Education Officers have drawn up a common code of conduct. The SEO has distributed the code to its members, and the Department will promulgate it shortly.
I was disturbed to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham said about a particular leaflet. I invite him to forward the leaflet to the Department, where it will be given the closest attention, to establish whether or not it breaches the code.
I have every confidence that the grant-maintained sector will continue to grow, irrespective of the views of Kent county council. I have every respect for the ability of Kent parents to think for themselves.
In the time remaining, I wish to turn to Mr. Pryke's article in The Times Educational Supplement, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham referred. In general, I agree with his views—that is, the views of my hon. Friend.
Perhaps I could take the opportunity to set the record straight on a number of matters. In the article, Mr. Pryke complains about inequitable funding arrangements. True, self-governing schools get some grants that are not available to their LEA-maintained counterparts. However, those grants reflect the additional responsibilities of grant-maintained schools and the additional expenditure they face, which LEA schools do not face.
The real difference in the financial arrangements of grant-maintained and non-grant-maintained schools is not the total amount of money but the fact that grant-maintained schools have control over 100 per cent. of their budget, so that they make all the spending decisions.
Mr. Pryke went on to attack the common funding formula on the grounds that it is a crude national formula


which will not take account of local variations. Yet the formula proposed includes an element for pupils with special educational needs, an element for fixed costs—which will be of particular help to small popular schools—and an element to take account of the additional costs associated with operating a school on more than one site.
Schools have already begun to feel the advantages of heavily pupil-led funding under LMS. The common funding formula will mean that, for the first time, each child can expect educational provision based on a genuine assessment of need rather than accident of birth within a particular LEA boundary.
Elsewhere in his article, Mr. Pryke spoke about inspection arrangements. Frankly, it is absurd to suggest that there has been no evaluation of the performance of GM schools—or, indeed, that there has been some kind of cover-up of the findings. Her Majesty's inspectors published a report earlier this year. Their findings were that, in general, self-governing schools have improved morale among staff and resulted in better management of resources and a much better climate within the classroom for effective education and improved pupil attendance. Those are the firm foundations for higher standards and improved examination results.
Under the new inspection regime, all schools that are wholly or mainly dependent on public funds—including, of course, grant-maintained schools—will be inspected on a regular four-yearly basis. The registered inspectors' reports will be published, as will the governors' action plans drawn up in response.
The Department for Education closely monitors the admission arrangements of self-governing schools. When a school applies for self-governing status, it must include in its proposals details of its admissions arrangements. Once those arrangements have been agreed with the Department, they cannot be changed without the prior approval of the Secretary of State.
Grant-maintained schools have a range of responsibilities beyond those of LEA-maintained schools. They are directly accountable— through governors— to parents and the local community. That is the local democratic base.

New arrangements such as those for the Funding Agency for Schools are not about structures that interfere with day-to-day running of individual schools. The FAS will most certainly not be a replacement LEA.
Once 10 per cent. of pupils in a local education authority sector are being educated in grant-maintained schools, the responsibility to ensure sufficient surplus places will be shared between the LEA and the funding agency. That division of responsibility recognises the increasing contribution to the provision of places made by grant-maintained schools.
Each party will be able to act only in relation to its own sector. The FAS will have the power to propose the expansion, alteration, or discontinuance of grant-maintained schools, while the LEA will retain these powers with respect to LEA schools. The FAS will therefore be able to reduce surplus places in grant-maintained schools in precisely the same way that LEAs can act to reduce surplus places in LEA-maintained schools.
Mr. Pryke claims that, because the LEA is not responsible for self-governing schools, the grant-maintained system is unaccountable and undemocratic. That is patent nonsense. No school goes grant-maintained without the majority of parents' approval; that is real democracy at work. Once grant-maintained schools have been established, they are directly accountable to parents and pupils.
I have listened with interest to, and I agree overwhelmingly with, what my hon. Friends have said. I believe, without doubt, that the grant-maintained sector will continue to grow and thrive, both in Kent and across the country as a whole. In years to come, people will wonder why we ever doubted that schools could run themselves on behalf of parents, pupils and their immediate community without being controlled by their local education authority.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Ten o'clock.